Making a Feast for the Deceased

Making a feast for the deceased Archaeobotanical investigation of plant remains in ovens used for drying cereals and food consumption through ovens, graves, and bog bodies

Daniel Smeds

Master thesis, 30 ETCS Environmental Archaeology Masters programme, 120 ECTS Spring Semester 2019

Foreword

First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude towards those who helped me in this endeavour. As I was able to conduct an internship at Moesgaard Museum at the department of conservation and natural science I owe a strong gratitude to all the personnel and staff, especially Peter Mose Jensen, who worked as my supervisor and board game friend as well as Peter Hambro Mikkelsen who allowed me to perform my internship there, as well as offerings his excellent noodle dinner. Tobias Danborg Torfing at Sydvestjysk Museer for allowing me to use his material for my thesis also deserves thanks.

I also owe a big thanks to all the teachers I had throughout my university life, including Dr. Holmblad and Dr. Rundkvist. Dr. Buckland who has worked as my supervisor now for two theses. He has been a great support to have in my many times of need as well as filled with fun anecdotal information about archaeology and beetles. I also owe gratitude to Dr. Ivanka Hristova, who worked as co-supervisor and guided me through many hours of environmental archaeology sessions in the lab. Dr. Linderholm, who has been motivating all of us master’s students and constantly pushing us using his fermented herring and carrot method, deserves a sincere thanks.

A special thanks to those two students who have been through all five years of university with me, I would like to thank, Ida Lundberg, who has also helped with a lot of knowledge about plants and wildlife and Love Eriksson. The other students from the master’s programme have also been of tremendous help such as Ola Lindgren with his GIS knowledge together with Eva Kourelas computer help. Stefano Vilardi and Balint Toth have also been of great help and fun during the many classes we had together. Stressing about work with all of You is more fun together than stressing on your own.

Mats Eriksson, working at the environmental archaeology laboratory (MAL) in Umeå who has been supporting with motivation, statistical help, and good times.

My parents should also be thanked as they have supplied me with endless encouragement throughout my life. Last but not least, I am also in debt to Ming-Hsin Lü, who has been a pillar during my theses work and the best partner one can have.

Abstract

Det finns många frågetecken kvar kring konsumtionsbeteende inom förhistoriska kulturer. Målet med denna studie var därför att studera och förbättra förståelsen av det arkeobotaniska materialet i ugnar gjorda för att torka sädeskorn och hur ugnarnas innehåll korrelerar med den växtbaserade matkonsumtionen, samt att försöka se potentiella samband mellan ugnarna, deponerade växtrester i gravar och de två mossliken Grauballemannen och Tollundmannens maginnehåll.

De 14 ugnarna, belägna i Sydskandinavien och daterade till järnåldern, analyserades och jämfördes för att se hur deras innehåll förhåller sig både i tid och rum men även jämfört med det övriga åkerbruket från bronsåldern till medeltiden. Det arkeobotaniska fynden visade att i yngre bronsåldern odlades det Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare, vilket följdes av en period då Hordeum vulgare var. nudum odlades. Detta pågick till slutet av romersk järnålder då Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare igen blev den vanligaste grödan att odla. I slutet av järnåldern odlades både Avena sativa och Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare. Övriga sädeskorn som Triticum sp. och Secale cereale har även odlats, dock endast till en mindre grad enligt fynden från ugnarna.

De arkeobotaniska fynden jämfördes sedan med den rådande bilden av matkulturen under järnåldern, vilket visar indikationer på att Chenopodium album, Fallopia convolvulus, Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia, Plantago lanceolata, Poacea, Polygonum aviculare och Spergula arvensis troligen har konsumerats tillsammans med de funna sädeskornen. Flera av dessa påträffades i de samtliga analyserade fornlämningarna.

Jämförelseanalyser i dendrogram mellan gravarnas och ugnars makrofossila rester samt de båda mosslikens maginnehåll visade inga definitiva samband. Dock fanns det gravar som korrelerade relativt starkt med ugnarnas innehåll, möjligen på grund av dess stora fyndmaterial av makrofossil. Dessa kunde visa indikationer på mat och måltid har deponerats i gravar.

Keywords

Archaeobotany, Cereal drying ovens, Food consumption, Grave deposition, Bog body stomach content

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Aims and research questions ...... 5 1.3 Theoretical perspective ...... 6 2. Background ...... 10 2.1 Early farming in south Scandinavia ...... 10 2.2 Iron Age ovens ...... 13 2.3 Iron Age plant food ...... 14 3. Material and method ...... 19 4. Results ...... 24 5. Discussion ...... 34 5. 1 How do the archaeobotanical remains in ovens used for drying grains change through the Iron Age and how do they compare to the agricultural landscape of south Scandinavia? ...... 34 5. 2 How do the archaeobotanical remains found in the ovens fit according to the current knowledge about Iron Age plant-based food? ...... 41 5. 3 What kind of similarities and differences are there between the ovens, graves, and bog bodies in terms of archaeobotanical remains and can any ritual meal be discerned? ...... 47 6. Conclusion ...... 52 References ...... 54 Appendix ...... 59

Figure index

Figure 1. Potential operation sequence of processing cereals in southern Scandinavia during the Iron Age. Source for the figure: redrawn after Viklund 1998:35, by Sofia Lindholm ...... 8 Figure 2. Chronological description of time periods in south Scandinavian prehistory (Based upon Grabowski 2014)...... 12 Figure 3. Distribution map of southern Scandinavia, showing the analysed features (Map by Ola Lindgren)...... 19 Figure 4. Agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to periods .... 24 Figure 5. Agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to their dated period ...... 25 Figure 6. Percentage of cereals found in each oven according to their dated period ...... 26 Figure 7. Non-agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to their dated period ...... 27 Figure 8. Non-agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to periods ...... 28 Figure 9. Archaeobotanical remains of the cereals found in graves, grouped according to the graves dated period ...... 29 Figure 10. Cluster analysis (A) of all ovens, graves and bog bodies using the Jaccard similarity coefficient. The analysis uses presence or absence of the taxa as comparison. Cluster analysis (B) of ovens, graves and bog bodies using the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient. The analysis uses the abundance of the taxon in the features. Highlighted features are discussed in more depth (analysis done with PAST3 (Hammer & Harper 2001)) ...... 30 Figure 11. Ecocodes of the archaeobotanical material found in the ovens, graves and the two bog bodies...... 32 Figure 12. Bar chart of the botanical remains of the features ...... 33

1. Introduction

Archaeologists often think about what made a culture able to survive, and the procurement of food is without a doubt one major aspect of this (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003). Archaeobotany and research concerning agriculture have greatly increased the knowledge of cultural development. It enables a reconstruction of the food habits and can be a testimony to social hierarchy through e.g. importation of exotic food (Viklund 1998:31). Although archaeobotany only contains the plant-based side of food, the study of diet and subsistence is a vital aspect of culture as it also reflects the social context of consuming food (Palmer & van der Veen 2002). There is, furthermore, also a skewed research bias in consumption habits. There is a great deal more work done on consumption patterns and feasting habits based on osteological remains than of botanical macrofossil remains (Hansson 1997:11), although this has started to change. Thus, it is important to continue this research into the food habits of the prehistoric people.

During the authors’ internship at Moesgaard Museum at the department for Conservation and Natural Science, a set of samples from two Jutlandic sites with Iron Age ovens used for drying cereals were analysed archaeobotanically. Ovens are a very interesting set of feature type as they are a deliberate selection of gathering from the agricultural fields. Activities ranging all the way from sowing and harvesting to selection of fuelwood for the ovens and subsequent drying of the cereal grains are represented. Therefore, the samples from the ovens will serve as a base for this thesis about the Iron Age ovens and consumption habits. The four ovens will be compared to other similar ovens from prehistory and the Iron Age agriculture.

The food aspect will be investigated primarily in earlier studies to get a grasp on what the consumption habits have been. Depositions in graves and investigation of the last meals of the bog bodies, yielding potentially indications of a ritual meal before death occurred. Both these feature types are good examples of both rituals and consumption habits. Therefore, an attempt in order to investigate a potential correlation between ovens, graves and bog bodies last meal will be carried out.

1.2 Aims and research questions

This thesis aims to investigate Iron Age ovens used for drying cereal grains in south Scandinavia through their archaeobotanical remains, both in changes through time and the consumption potential of the remains. This will, in turn, be compared against archaeobotanical remains of graves and two bog bodies, in order to investigate if a potential relationship of food can be detected between these structures and remains.

1. How do the archaeobotanical remains in ovens used for drying grains change through the Iron Age and how do they compare to the agricultural landscape of south Scandinavia?

2. How do the archaeobotanical remains found in the ovens fit according to the current knowledge about Iron Age plant-based food?

3. What kind of similarities and differences are there between the ovens, graves, and bog bodies in terms of archaeobotanical remains and can any ritual meal be discerned?

1.3 Theoretical perspective Food is consumed every day if possible. Therefore, it is of no surprise that some food has also developed into a ritual context, such as funerary rites and food offerings to deities (Palmer & van der Veen 2002). Archaeobotany often focuses on the gathering of wild plants and reconstructing the agricultural practices of which tends to be based on the habitat and physical properties of the plant. These uniformitarian theories of past agricultural lack to some degree, the necessary social and cultural interpretation that is needed when dealing with food. Together with ethnographical, anthropological and historical studies, a more holistic approach can be achieved (Heiss & Hansson 2014).

In anthropology, consumption and food processing is a non-verbal language that all human societies participate in. The food system with whom, when, where, and what is being eaten, is a cultural tradition and rules of a people, mirroring the values and belief systems (Hitch 2015:116). Furthermore, there is also a difference worth noting between a diet and a meal. A meal is a single occurring event, while a diet is a consisting pattern of meals (Hansson 1997:37). This means that both graves and stomach contents of bog bodies only represent a single meal, which may not have been the norm for food intake. As theories of a special last meal for the bog bodies have been proposed, deliberate selection plants have also been proposed (Palmer & van der Veen 2002). Graves also represents a deliberate deposition, although they may not merely contain the last meal, cereals and seeds found may also have been deposited for symbolical purposes, not intended as a meal (Hansson 1997:37). Therefore, and for the lack of accessible archaeobotanical data of graves, both cremation and inhumation graves from multiple periods will be investigated, although there are clear biases in the taphonomy in different kinds of graves, as will be discussed below.

Consuming food is a very nuanced way of expressing oneself. It can represent the cultural identity such as ethnicity and social and economic situation. For instance, Palmer and van der Veen (2002) proposed that in Roman societies and other societies that are more structured and have a strong hierarchy, the emphasis lies on exotic food and beverages, while archaic societies tend to focus on the quantity of food. There is also a huge variation in what kind of food that is served and consumed, with elaborate or ritualistic food more likely to be reserved for celebrations or an honoured guest and have a highly selective process of which ingredients to use. On the other hand, more mundane food is eaten on a more daily basis. This, of course, is also dependent on how a meal is prepared and how it is consumed. Food is an important way of expressing one’s identity, this also includes food deposits in religious and burial

6 practices. Festivities and religious ritual are also known to include drinking and feasting (Heiss & Hansson 2014).

Ethnographical studies have taught archaeobotanists a great deal about consuming habits. These kinds of research can very well be of use for interpreting the consuming habits during the Iron Age in Scandinavia (Viklund 1998:17). Hillman (1984) assessed that prehistoric agriculture had around 30 different steps of process before an edible meal can be achieved. During these steps, species are divided, or part of the plant are separated, and preservation of plant material can occur at any time. Although the same procedures might not have been done in the same way through time and space, as the method and steps of agriculture may have changed or become unnecessary. Cereal cultivation and food habits are, however, both considered to have a stronger connection to the humans and thus less susceptible to change (Viklund 1998).

There is still a lot to uncover in terms of producing cereal, as questions around the chain of processes remain unclear. It is safe to assume that most of the grains dried in ovens came for the local surrounding (Viklund 1998:16), but this is just one step of a large chain of operations (see figure 1). Houses can sometimes be considered as a direct insight into the material of the house just before it burnt down. Ovens, the other hand, are more often thought to be of repeating scenarios, meaning that it has been exposed to multiple usages before it was abandoned. Therefore, the ovens are able to present the agricultural practices in a more nuanced way. In that sense, ovens can also show a more diverse picture of the past food culture (Grabowski 2014). The ovens are in contrast compared to graves depositions and the bog bodies last meal which would hold a single time deposition or consumption of a meal.

Figure 1. Potential operation sequence of processing cereals in southern Scandinavia during the Iron Age. Source for the figure: redrawn after Viklund 1998:35, by Sofia Lindholm

Ritual is often used when dealing with scenarios that are considered extraordinary, when in fact a ritual can also be done as a mundane or everyday action. In this thesis, I am to use the word Ritual as an action with a greater degree of a formality than an ordinary day-to-day activity, although these two actions can overlap with each other (Bradley 2005:104, 106). Therefore, there are no clear distinctions on what rituals and the ordinary are. It very much depends on the situation the scenario takes. A deposition, or a meal, can have different meanings depending on what the outcome is desired (Bradley 2005:119-120). Although it is important to remember that not all preformed rituals are associated with religious beliefs or the supernatural (Bradley 2005:28).

Care is also due when an archaeologist is trying to examine prehistorical ritual acts using contemporary models of explaining actions on societies when there seems to be a lack of a clear goal or outcome of the ritual action (Brück 1999). This could be because the Christian ritual often takes place in a special place, performed by special people for a clear and well- established outcome (Bradley 2005:35). Sometimes a ritual act does not appear to do anything, and therefore, they must have some another purpose or needs to be reinterpreted (Brück 1999:318). Thus, it can be quite difficult to find out whether or not a consumed meal or drink had a ritual tone to it.

Depositions in lakes and bogs have been an ongoing process from the Mesolithic in Sweden (Bradley 2005:143). These acts, involving agricultural tools, people and artifacts in wetland areas, are very closely linked with rituals and the prehistoric people’s beliefs systems. This

8 too applies to fertility and death during the Danish Bronze Age and Iron Age. Although one should be careful not to overinterpret artifacts and finds as there has been a number of researchers suggesting that plant remains in e.g. postholes could be considered as a ritual deposition (Regnell 1997). Although, this has been criticized and is more likely it had to do with the layout of the interior structure and layout of the house (Viklund 1998).

Taphonomic processes are always something to consider when interpreting archaeological remains. This, too, applies for extraction of archaeobotanical remains. This includes 1) the use of an artifact before deposition, 2) the preservation capability of a site, 3) processes of deposition, 4) potential post-depositional actions and 5) the excavation of the material. This will all factor in towards the result, and vary depending on the archaeological methods, even though sites may originally have had similar remains (Grabowski 2014:29). One problem with the handling of data also exists when researchers are biased towards their results. This may lead to researcher choosing a part of the data which is either confirming or disproving a hypothesis (Grabowski 2014:36).

Preservation of botanical remains is dictated by a number of criteria. Carbonised plant remains are, perhaps, the most common form of preservation. Seeds, or other plant parts, need to be exposed to sufficient heat in order to become carbonised. The process will also factor in the most in this thesis as both ovens and graves include great heat. Other preservation processes include waterlogging which will factor in towards the bog bodies, but also mineralisation, desiccation and imprints of plant remain on e.g. ceramic pots (Grabowski 2014:6). In order for seeds to be preserved as non-charred remains, a special kind of environment must be present. These environments must be oxygen-poor such as waterlogged, frozen environments, or sometimes even deeply buried in soils, depending on the acidic level. Seeds are, however, better preserved as carbonised than untreated, as non-charred seeds usually are easier subjected to fungus, rot, and decay (Viklund 1998:31).

The carbonisation process must be of a certain temperature for the seeds to be able to be preserved. If the temperature is too high, then the seeds contain a high amount of fat, e.g. Linum usitatissimum and Camelia sativa, can be completely or partially destroyed. In heat with a high amount of oxygen will usually result in only ash remains (Grabowski 2014:7). Between 250 – 500°C in a low oxygen environment complete combustion of the cereals is achieved (Viklund 1998:97). However, the charring of seeds affects both the morphological characteristics, and their shape or surface pattern may be distorted (Grabowski 2014:7). Some seeds disintegrate, while others may only have slight distortion. The charring process can 9 happen in many various ways, e.g. accidental burning of a house often results in botanical remains in postholes and deliberate drying of cereals in ovens can produce charred grains (Viklund 1998:90).

2. Background

2.1 Early farming in south Scandinavia The first traces of agricultural practises in Denmark are from the latter half of the fourth millennium BC. Although agriculture is presumed to be a small supplement to hunter- gatherers, this new way of acquiring food soon came to revolutionize the environment and the population. The transition to agriculture, not only changed the food production but had also an enormous impact on the economic and social structure. It allowed for an increase in population but demanded an increase in effort of food production (Jensen 1982:70). The areas which were first farmed were previously covered in forest and humans, thus, impacted the local vegetation and fauna. Although modest and sparse at first, around 3200 BC that the agrarian culture started to rapidly expand (Jensen 1982:73, 77).

With the introduction of ard-ploughing technology in the third millennium BC, a gradual transition from slash-and-burn technique started (Jensen 1982:80). The Neolithic agrarian cultivation consisted of spelt (Triticum spelta), emmer (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn (Triticum monococcum), and naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum), although by the late Neolithic einkorn was only sparsely cultivated and consisted in a similar manner until the Late Bronze Age (see figure 2 for year classifications). In Jutland, these types of cereals remained longer in use than in Scania. There, a new type of grains was also being cultivated more and more, hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare), and eventually becoming the dominant type of cereal grain (Grabowski 2014:13). Around 1000 BC a new type of agriculture started to appear. The use of manuring became more and more prevalent along with the introduction of the three- aisled longhouse (Viklund 1998:139).

Around 500 BC – 1 AD, the cultivation of emmer and spelt decreased drastically while both hulled and naked barley seems to have been cultivated to a comparable degree. In the subsequent years, however, naked barley starts to decrease as well in importance and by the Late Roman Iron Age, hulled barley became the prevailing cultivated cereal (Grabowski 2013). The iron sickle was introduced sometime later in the Pre-Roman Iron Age, which

10 enable harvesting the straws closer to the ground, and the subsequent gathering of straws as fodder for the animals. Before the introduction of the iron sickle, hand-plucking of the cereal grains may have taken place, or by crude flint or bronze sickles (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:137).

Celtic field systems were in use from around 800 BC – AD 200 and were in use in Denmark, Gotland, and southern parts of Sweden, while stone clearance systems were in use in the south and central Sweden. Due to the large size of the stone clearance setting and Celtic fields, questions whether all of the fields were cultivated at the same time has arisen. Potentially they were cultivated for a few years to decades and then migrated to another field, while the previous ones were left to serve as a fallow field (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:125).

Around 400 – 500 AD, rye (Secale cereale) started to become more and more common, although hulled barley still remained the dominant crop until the Viking Age (Viklund 1998:174). Rye cultivation culminated around the Viking Period – Medieval Period when it seems to have had the same high status as hulled barley. Oat (Avena sativa) also saw an increase in importance during the Late Iron Age and indicating towards more intentional cultivation (Grabowski 2014:15).

The latter half of the Iron Age, 600-1100 AD, saw a transition to autumn-sown crops on a three-field or two-field system (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:127, Viklund 1998:37), with rye being the autumn-sown crop and hulled barley being sowed in the spring (Grabowski 2014:22). This change also brought upon new weed species (Robinson 1994). A permanent field most likely relayed on repeated manuring as the nutrients in the ground was not to be depleted. These types of fields would have been sustainable for a few years up to a few decades. After the nutrients disappeared or certain weed species would have taken over the field, a migration of the farm would have taken place. Then the old agriculture land would have turned in to a fallow while a new field was being cultivated (Grabowski 2013). Regional differences in south Scandinavia, of course, occurs throughout both regions and time.

Figure 2. Chronological description of time periods in south Scandinavian prehistory (Based upon Grabowski 2014)

The development of infields and outfields during the Iron Age was not as developed as in the Medieval and Post-Medieval Period was. The infield is, in its roughest form, the area of cultivation and possibly the meadow used for fodder. The outfield, in contrast, was the area where the animals grazed or where people gathered other resources such as wood and wild plants from wood- and wetlands (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:129, Grabowski 2014:24).

When the fields where harvested and the grains collected, threshing was used to remove unwanted parts of the cereal from plant e.g. the awns, either by clubbing the straws with a mallet or a club on a hard surface (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:138). The use of animals trampling the grains from the awns has also been documented. Finds of both threshed and unthreshed have been found suggesting that threshing could take place around the year (Viklund 1998).

The threshing was followed by sieving which aims to remove the cereal grains from the weed seeds and other plant parts. This could be achieved by three different methods, pouring, winnowing or flinging. Winnowing method is used by throwing the cereals up in the air in a place with wind or draught. The lighter particles would be flown away with the wind while the larger would fall into the basket or troughs. The larger unwanted particles could then be plucked away by hand. The pouring method is done in a similar matter as it also utilizes the wind and pouring the cereals containing chaffs, awns, weed seed and cereal grains from one container to another from a height. Flinging, or throwing, the material along a floor could also have been utilized as a method. Throwing the grains separates the lighter particles from the heavier using their own weight. The lighter particles such as awns, chaffs and smaller weed seeds land closer to the person, while the heavier cereal grains are thrown further (Viklund

1998:60-62). The use of sieves for cleaning the crops is also most definitely used (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:138).

2.2 Iron Age ovens The processing of vegetal matter has a variety of desired outcomes. Amongst the desired outcomes are to change the physical structure, making the food tastier, more stable and less toxic. The ovens used for drying the cereals can be considered to contain a few of these outcomes i.e. a change physical structure and more stable when storing the grains (Metheny & Beaudry 2015:411). Botanical remains in the ovens would most likely have been subjected to a range of different crop processing methods before (Hansson 1997:46).

Due to the moist climate of northern Europe, ways of drying the cereal grains were necessary to implement. If the air is too moist, the seeds are subjected to develop mold, or they can even start to germinate. Therefore, several ways of drying and roasting were common in historical times such as designated houses, bastu. The cereals could also be dried by suspending them in a pot or kettle above a hearth or rolling hot stones on the grains. Drying of hulled species in ovens was probably done as the grinding, and the subsequent, food making was both easier and tastier, and of course, for storing (Viklund 1998:90-92). Drying of germinated cereals has also taken place in order to make beer (Ross et al. 2016). There are not many sites found in Sweden that are interpreted as oven used for drying cereal grains or other similar structurers used for drying the crops dating to the Iron Age (Viklund 1998:93), therefore, the majority of ovens are composed of Danish material.

Ovens can have many different shapes as rectangular U-shaped, oval dome-shaped or keyhole-shaped are known from the northern and western Europe (Vanhanen & Mikkanen 2013. Ross et al. 2016). They can be located both inside and next to a settlement and sometimes situated close to the fields for easier and faster drying when harvesting the crops (Vanhanen & Mikkanen 2013). In the large chamber, often made out of clay and stones, the harvest is placed upon a suspended floor and then subsequently roasted (Ross et al. 2016).

There are ovens that contain several ceramic sherds and thus been interpreted as ceramic ovens (e.g. Høyem Andreasen 2016). These types of ovens will also be included as they can have been used for both pottery making and drying cereals. Other oven types that existed are iron extraction furnaces. These ovens are used, as the name implies, for extracting iron from bog ore. These will, however, not be investigated to a large extent but they often contain an

13 abundance of plants from cereals, such as hulled barley or rye, and weed species which were placed at the bottom of the extraction oven (Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:173).

2.3 Iron Age plant food The prehistoric food culture encompassed not only the basic sustenance but also a social role. It served as a social insurance and marker, symbol of power, but also formed a religious element (Hansson 1997). With potentially more than half the food coming from agricultural lands, not factoring in the gathered plants, agriculture played a huge role in daily life (Pedersen & Widgren 2004). Although for other areas in Scandinavia, agriculture would not have been feasible in a similar manner as colder regions would have relied more heavily on meat from animals (Hansson 1994:5).

Amongst the most common type of food used from cereals is porridge, bread, and grain-paste (Zachrisson 2014:183). Grain-paste can sometimes be a dish by itself but can also be refined further into porridge. The difference between grain-paste and porridge is the latter is cooked. The historical account of Pliny (23 – 79 AD) states that the Greek people used to soak their barley grains in water over one night, drying it over a fire and then grinding it mixed with flax seeds into a grain-paste (Hansson 1994:6). Grain-paste and porridge is hard to find in archaeological remains, while the bread is more commonly found, as it is baked. For porridge and grain-paste to be preserved, they are almost required to have been found in a pot or similar vessel, while bread and beer can sometimes be found in graves (Hansson 1994:10). The coffin of the Egtved girl from the Bronze Age contained a container which had had a mixture of beer and fruit wine. It was made from wheat along with cranberries or lingonberries and honey (Glob 1970).

The earliest known bread in the Nordic countries is from around 200 AD, potentially introduced by returning men from Roman auxiliary service. Without a doubt, a large number of new species was introduced to central and southern Europe by the Romans and subsequently gradually introduced to the north (Rohde Sloth et al. 2015:33). The first types of bread were most likely eaten on special occasions, as the bread seems to have been associated with higher powers (Hansson 1997). Furthermore, the first find rotary querns are found together with carbonised bread in central places like Helgö and Uppåkra. It is only in the

Viking Age that rotary querns become a common practice, while the pre-existing grinding stone was common until the medieval period (Zachrisson 2014:181).

Most commons edible plant food was undoubtedly from cereals, though, finds of storages containing weed seeds have also been encountered. A large find of Chenopodium album found in a heap in a granary building along with separate heaps of oats and barley are known from Danish prehistory. The weed seeds would be most likely gathered in the fields and fallows to supplement the diet (Helbæk 1959b). In total, it has been proposed that Spergula arvensis, Bromus secalinus, Polygonum lapathifolium (nowadays known as Persicaria lapathifolia), Chenopodium album, Fallopia convolvulus, Rumex acetosella, and Glyceria fluitans have most likely played a substantial part of the human food intake of the plant foods (Behre 2008:65).

Garden plants, or horticulture, has been documented to have existed in the Viking Age, but may well have taken place further back in prehistory as well. These gardens placed just outside the house would include herbs, vegetables, spices and also medicinal plants. The use of medicinal plants is, however, convoluted as some plants may have acted as both food and medicine depending on the desired outcome (Karg & Robinson 2000:133). Plants like peas and beans are poorly preserved, as they are harvested before they set seeds, but has most likely been cultivated. Sowing of garden plants for the next year’s harvest would likely not have required as many seeds to be preserved as required for cereals (Rohde Sloth et al. 2015). Without a doubt was other parts of the plants used as well for food besides the seeds. Leaves, roots, and bulbs, however, rarely gets preserved without exceptional preservation (Behre 2008:65).

Gathering of plants in the outfield was also an important task, e.g. sweet gale (Myrica gale) grows in bogs and on heathland and had to be gathered for use in brewing beer along with hops (Hansson 2005). Fruits, nuts, and berries such as wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca), elderflower (Sambucus nigra), various Rubus species along with hazel and acorns of oak consisted to a large degree of the traditionally gathered species that are not classed as a weed (Karg & Robinson 2002. Robinson 1994:545). As shown by both the Kayhausen bog body which contained apple seeds, millet, flax, Persicaria lapathifolia, Spergula arvensis and Chenopodium album in large quantities (Behre 2008:67) and the Neolithic bog body called ‘Raspberry girl’, which was found with large amounts of raspberry seeds in her stomach (Sjögren et al. 2017), the gathering of wild plants and weeds was common.

Bog bodies have often been under the discussion when considering sacrifice and offerings during the Iron Age. This too applies to the archaeobotanical aspects of the deceased (Palmer & van der Veen 2002). Tacitus wrote in his book Germania that bog bodies are a form of penalty for desertion or punishment of homosexual acts (Tacitus 2016:25). As there are several countries and different periods from when the bog bodies belong to, from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age, it is difficult to group them all together. There have most likely been a difference in the social, political, and religious aspect throughout these periods (Turner 1999:227). Bog bodies from earlier periods than the Iron Age, however interesting, lay beyond the scope of this thesis but can serve as a comparison, as it would be unjust for a comparison as there is a time difference of several centuries and millennia (Bennike 1990:29)

The famous bog body, Tollund Man, was found in 1950 in Bjældskovdal and dated to 300 BC (Glob 1969). Tollund Man was found with a leather noose around his neck, which indicated that he had been strangled to death. He had worn a pointed leather cap on his head and a belt of oxhide around his hips, but in other regards, naked (Fischer 1999:94). Parts of Tollund man’s body had suffered from taphonomic processes but due to his well-preserved intestines were examined and indicated that his last meal consisted of vegetarian food that was ingested about 12-14 hours before death occurred. Tollund Mans last meal was porridge consisting of ground wheat and barley grains completed by flax seeds and the seeds of up to 30 different wild plants such as spurrey, hemp nettle, willow-herb, gold-of-pleasure and plantago (Fischer 1999:94). The meal is unable to provide any certain time of the year that Tollund man was sacrificed, but it has been suggested that he died in winter or early spring (Coles & Coles 1989:181). The porridge could have been boiled in bog water as indicated by moss fragments. There was also a quite high abundance of sand found in his stomach.

Grauballe man was found in 1952, in a very well-preserved state, although some distortion to his face and parts of his inner organs were decayed a bit. His death is, however, different from Tollund man as Grauballe man had had his throat cut from ear to ear, along with a broken leg and a blow to the face. He is relatively contemporarily deposited into a bog, similar to Tollund man. Tollund man and Grauballe man had eaten a similar meal, which contained cereals and over 50 wild species. The meal also indicated the time of death to winter or early summer, due to there being no summer or autumn fruits or berries (Fischer 1999:96. Coles & Coles 1989: 181).

The Borre man has many of the characteristics of the previous bog bodies presented. He was found with a noose around his neck, indicating that he was either strangled or hanged, which 16 according to C14 date, took place around 700 BC. His last meal consisted of gruel with knotweed and Spergula arvensis amongst other weed seeds (Fischer 1999). The English Lindow Man (Lindow II) was found in a bog in 1984 and believed to have met his end in the first century AD. He was found naked except for a fur band around his upper left arm. He also had a trimmed beard and hair and well-polished nails. Due to no finds of insects, it would appear that he was buried immediate after receiving two blows to the head and strangled until his neck broke (Turner 1999:229). His last meal consisted of a bread made of a mixture of emmer wheat, spelt, and barley. His stomach also contained mistletoe pollen and Sphagnum, indicating an unclean beverage. In the same bog, Lindow man III was found in a similar state. His last meal consisted of crushed cereal grains and hazelnuts (Fischer 1999:96).

Graves offers a good context for ritual and symbolically interpreted food remains (Heiss & Hansson 2014). These graves offerings are usually intended for use in the afterlife, either as whole meals or just as ingredients, representing a meal, drink or medicine (Karg et al. 2014). Grave offerings are considered deliberate depositions and can indicate socioeconomics and belief system of past cultures. Food offerings related to death does not, however, necessary involved the deceased person but can also include feasting for the participants. Ibn Fadhlan, an Arabic traveller describes a tenth-century funeral feast of a band of Rus which included animal sacrifice and heavy drinking (Metheny & Beaudry 2015:345). Food and drinks appear to have been common in graves dated to the Viking Age in Birka, although perhaps a more special meal than the everyday meal (Hansson 1996:62). Graves does not necessarily always contain a meal aimed for the afterlife, but rather a symbolic deposition. The remarkable burial of Peder Windstrup from the 1600s contained a large number of hops, along with cereal grains of rye, barley and oat, and other pleasant-smelling plant parts in both his pillow and bedding material (Lagerås 2016).

Several cremation graves from the latter half of the Iron Age in Sweden have contained bread (Zachrisson 2014:185). Excavation at sites in central Sweden and Helgö, Ljunga and Boberget have also resulted in numerous finds of breads (Hansson 2005). These breads have, however, only been preserved due to the charred state that they were in. Not only are cereals used for making bread throughout the prehistoric times, but also vetches, flax, gold of pleasure, field weeds and even peas, while in the Medieval Period, pure cereal bread is the most common types of breads (Hansson 2005). A study from the 1950s done by Åke Campbell suggests that the contemporary bread dates back all the way to the Medieval Period. Before that bread was consisted mostly as a thin and flatbread, baked over a fire (Viklund

1998:142). Hulled barley was the most common type used for making bread followed by oats, but not these were the only type of cereals. The bread contained often two or more types of cereals (Hansson 1996:71). It is only during the 16th century that rye became the most commonly harvested grain in central Sweden. However, rye bread had been a common sight in southern Scandinavia, especially Denmark, since the Late Iron Age (Viklund 1998:147).

Carbonized bread found in graves can be hard to distinguish from porridge or grain-paste, but both are a good source of information into the mindset of prehistoric people, as both the content and technique of making the food are carefully chosen (Hansson 1997). Charred bread is often found in graves they are assumed to be an essential part of a ritualistic deposition in burials. Most of the charred botanical remains found in graves can be assumed to have been buried along with the body. The most common burial practise of Late Bronze Age to Late Iron Age was cremation burial (Viklund 1998:145,155), although the religious beliefs and practices may greatly have changed during these periods (Glob 1969:105). This may also include the practice and purpose of the bog bodies.

Excavation and soil analyses of graves from Birka have also resulted, not only bread but also finds of Crataegus calycina, Prunus spinosa, and Prunus instititia and hazelnuts (Arwidsson 1984:274). Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum have also been recorded in graves in Sweden. Furthermore, there are finds of several types of different cereals in some graves, along with straw fragments. Sometimes even appearing to be in leather pouches (Viklund 1998:155). Peas and flax are rarely found in graves but are credited to have had magical powers. Grave depositions of flax and pluses are known from in burial rituals from 19th century Sweden. Nuts, millet seeds, and other cereals being more common as depositions (Viklund 1998:159).

3. Material and method

The geographical setting is the south part of Scandinavia, i.e. Denmark, and the southern parts of Sweden. However, due to the low amount of accessible archaeobotanical material of graves, a wider area was forced to be accounted for, such as the grave from Para in Ångermanland, northern Sweden and cairns from a gravemound in east-central Sweden (see figure 3 for map). The time frame is mostly based on the Iron Age, with a few features dating both to earlier and later periods in order to show a more distinct diversification. For a full description of the features, the readers are referred to table 1 and 2 and the references there.

While the first research question is mostly a comparison between ovens throughout the prehistory and the third research question focusing on a potential similarity between ovens, graves and the two bog bodies. The second research question is foremost a literary research topic which aims to give a more holistic interpretation into the food culture of the Iron Age when combined with the other research questions.

Figure 3. Distribution map of southern Scandinavia, showing the analysed features (Map by Ola Lindgren)

The material is collected from Moesgaards museums department for conservation and natural science laboratory reports, the environmental laboratory at Umeå University (MAL), as well as SEAD database (Buckland & Eriksson 2018). These served as bases for the research. Additional literature and the stomach content of the bog bodies were found in books, articles and other papers related to the subject. All samples and features were analysed by other researchers and staff personal at the various institutions, except two sites. Cobra Kablet and Tjæreborg were analysed by the author with standard procedure of stereomicroscope and reference literature as well as the supervision of Peter Mose Jensen at Moesgaard Museum. As for the bog bodies, Tollund man and Grauballe man only have an estimation of the amount contained in their stomach as the seeds were too heavily fragmented for a clear distinction. In the appendix, 1) means that there are less than 5 seed, 2) represents 5-15 seeds and 3) over 15 seeds and 4) means that it is the majority of the sample. See table 1 and 2 for the archaeobotanical remains of the analysed features that have more than 20 seeds (15 for the bog bodies) of a single species and the appendix for a complete table of all species from the features.

The dendrogram (see figure 10) was created in PAST3 using Paired group (UPGMA) and both the Bray-Curtis and Jaccard’s similarity coefficients. The dendrogram is a way of presenting how datapoints may correlate or cluster. Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient is based upon the abundance of each taxon in the features. When a taxon is absent, the tool ignores that taxa and few or rare taxa adds very little to the coefficient (Krebs 2014) (see Hammer 2013 for calculation details). Jaccard’s similarity coefficient is somewhat similar, although it only factors in if a sample has a presence or an absence of taxa in the sample of feature (Krebs 2014).

The plants were grouped into their habitats (which the author will refer to as Ecocodes), according to botanical literature such as Mossberg & Stenberg (2010) and Nylén (2000), as well as based on Buckland’s (2007) thesis of developing a system of categorizing fossil insects, although adapted for an archaeobotanical usage. Cultivated species are composed of cereals species. Oil, fibre, and horticultural plants are made up of species that are cultivated but not cereals. This group contains plant such as Linum usitatissimum, Camelia sativa and Daucus carota. Gathered plants consist of species that has collected, but are not cereals, oil, fibre, or horticultural species, e.g., Corylus avellana, Rubus idaeus and Juniperus communis. Meadow and grass species are more likely to grow in areas affected by grazing or similar conditions. This group includes Poaceae and Rumex acetosella, among others. The weeds and

20 ruderal species such as Chenopodium album and Persicaria maculosa, thrives in fields and anthropogenic soils (see appendix for the Ecocodes of the plants). There is, however, a potential overlapping area of the Ecocodes. Certain species can also exist in two or more groups; thus, these plants were duplicated and group into both Ecocodes.

4. Results

Figure 4. Agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to periods

Figure 4 shows the difference in cereals species throughout the periods investigated. Ovens (in both figure 4 and 5) that had dates spanning from one period to another was grouped into both periods as it is possible that they were used in a prolonged period and overlapping periods. The numbers inside and next to the bars indicate the frequency of species in the ovens. The number of ovens used for each staple in figure 4, 5, 7 and 8 is displayed underneath the bars.

The Late Bronze Age is dominated by barley (Hordeum sp.) with hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare) being the main species identified. The following period, Pre-Roman Iron Age, on the other hand, is dominated by naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) although it contains several other kinds of cereals as well in smaller quantities. There is a noticeable change from naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) to hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare) in the Germanic Iron Age. Oat (Avena sp.) is found in the Roman Iron Age and the two periods preceding and succeeding periods, as well as a large amount of oat in the Viking Age and Medieval Period. Rye (Secale cereale) is only found in samples from the Roman Iron Age and Germanic Iron Age, and then it has a clear presence.

Wheat (Triticum) is only represented a few times in the Pre-Roman Iron Age and then in the latter half of the Iron Age.

Figure 5. Agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to their dated period

Figure 5 was achieved by grouping the ovens according to periods in a more comprehensive scope than figure 4. Figure 4 and 5 shows similar results, though figure 5 show a more gradual change in agricultural and cereal crops. Late Bronze Age has a clear abundance of cereals only determined to genus, Hordeum, followed by Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare. The early part of the Iron Age contains the large amount of Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, and a change towards Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare can be seen from late Roman Iron Age. The late Roman Iron Age – early Germanic Iron Age contains more Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare than Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, the majority is, however, Secale cereale. The latter half of the Iron Age is dominated by hulled barley although Avena sp. and Avena sativa is overshadowing the other species in the youngest oven.

Figure 6. Percentage of cereals found in each oven according to their dated period

Figure 6 shows the difference within the ovens in different periods. In periods with multiple ovens, there are some variations between the ovens as well. The ovens in Pre-Roman Iron Age contain large amounts of oats (Avena sp.) while CO.A4343 contains over 25 000 naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) grains, thus it will factor into a huge degree in other graphs. However, figure 5 shows a similar trend with a change of naked barley to hulled barley, while also highlighting the various smaller quantities of other cereals.

Figure 7. Non-agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to their dated period

Figures 7 and 8 show the non-agricultural plant composition that occurred with a higher frequency than 50 in the ovens over time. Species that prefer the same kind of soils and belong to the same family (e.g Persicaria maculosa and Persicaria lapathifolia) were grouped together as to decrease the number of species that would otherwise be in the graph and to make it more comprehensible. Species that were undetermined but likely to be of a certain species (e.g. Chenopodium cf. album) were also grouped according to the species or family. This will make the graphs more easily understandable, although may be a bit skewed. One needs to bear in mind the uneven distribution of the number of species in the ovens, as some contain a higher abundance of certain species. The Early Roman Iron Age staple e.g. contains up towards 8000 seeds of Spergula arvensis while the following periods does not equal that amount altogether. The Late Bronze Age oven contained no data of non-cultivated species.

The sudden decrease of Spergula arvensis from the Early Roman Iron Age is very noticeable. Persicaria sp. is consistent through most periods, although they do not appear in all periods. Chenopodium sp. and Poaceae existed throughout all the periods as well. Other species appear more seldom throughout the periods but can nonetheless be found in quite large quantities.

Figure 8. Non-agricultural species of the archaeobotanical remains in the ovens according to periods

Figure 8 is similar to figure 7, although the ovens are grouped according to the chronological order, they occur in. Ovens overlapping between periods has been grouped, similar to figure 4, 5, 7 and 8 was done. The first two staples that contain non-cultivated species have a much larger quantity of seed than the rest of the staples combined. Similar to figure 7, Spergula arvensis is in a drastic decrease in frequency after the Roman Iron Age. Other species have roughly the same frequencies throughout the periods, although the latter periods contain much

28 fewer seeds in total. This is due to the fact that there are more ovens in the Pre-Roman Iron Age analysed.

The figures presented above shows that cereals in the ovens have all been cultivated and eaten to a large degree during certain periods. Weed seeds have been consumed in quantities as well and non-agricultural remains with more than 20 seeds in ovens and graves, 15 for bog bodies, are Chenopodium album, Fallopia convolvulus, Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia, Plantago lanceolata, Poacea, Polygonum aviculare and Spergula arvensis. Other non-agricultural seeds that may have been consumed have lower frequencies but are also present in all three feature types.

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS OF CEREALS IN GRAVES 100 % 1 134 80 % 12 1 60 % 9 196 2 1 40 % 15 18 20 % 1 1 116 2 0 % 0 CG.1063 CG.43 CG.231 CG.A2:2 CG.15248 CG.A1:1 CG.A1:2 LRIA - eGIA eGIA eGIA GIA eGIA - VIK lGIA VIK Avena sp. Hordeum vulgare var. nudum Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare Hordeum vulgare sp. Secale cereale Triticum aestivum Triticum sp.

Figure 9. Archaeobotanical remains of the cereals found in graves, grouped according to the graves dated period Figure 9 should only be taken as a very broad indication of the cereals deposited in graves according to their dates. As there are so few graves and very little remains in all but one grave, this should not be stretched further. There are, however, a similar indication as to then ovens. i.e. a trend of naked barley in the beginning, which changes towards hulled barley. Worth noting is that all the graves are very close in time and should therefore not be seen as definitive evidence. Bread wheat Tritium aestivum is furthermore considered to be a luxury compared to hulled barley and could be a sign of a high-status burial gift (Hansson 2005).

Figure 10. Cluster analysis (A) of all ovens, graves and bog bodies using the Jaccard similarity coefficient. The analysis uses presence or absence of the taxa as comparison. Cluster analysis (B) of ovens, graves and bog bodies using the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient. The analysis uses the abundance of the taxon in the features. Highlighted features are discussed in more depth (analysis undertaken with PAST3 (Hammer & Harper 2001))

Figure 10 presents two correlation dendrograms created in the PAST3 program (Hammer & Harper 2001). (A) is Jaccard’s similarity coefficient which focuses on the presence and

30 absence of the species in all of the features, while Bray-Curtis (B) analysis relies on the raw data of the features. In both dendrograms, the closer to 1 on the left scale, the closer two features correlate with each other. This means that they have similar contents in e.g. an oven and a grave. The use of Jaccard and presence/absence of the features is a solution to overcome the fact that ovens can have been used many times, while graves and the stomach content of the two bog bodies are most likely just a single occurring event.

In the Jaccard dendrogram, none of the features correlate with each other higher up than 0.6. However, the two features that correlate the most with each other are CO.12357 and CG.15248, followed by CO.1030, CO.125, and CO.2743. The ovens CO.A4343, CO.17,190, and CG. 231 are also features that are more closely correlated with each other. In (A) there are graves that are more closely correlated with other graves than with ovens and bog bodies, although there are graves (CG.231 and CG.15248) that correlate with ovens. The two bog bodies also correlate the most with each other. CG.1063 is the feature that is the least similar to any other features.

In Bray-Curtis similarity correlation dendrogram, three features, CO.2743, CO.A1460 and CG.231, followed by CO.A1968 are very similar to each other, contrasting to (A) dendrogram. CO.POKS and CO.KS are fairly similar to each other. Tollund man and Grauballe man are also closely correlated with each other as in (A). The graves and bog bodies are not correlating with each other, other than previous mentioned CG.231.

Ecocodes of the plants found in the features

Bog bodies (Presence/absence)

Grave (Presence/absence)

Oven (Presence/absence)

Bog bodies frequencies

Grave frequencies

Oven frequencies

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %

Cultivated plants Gathered plants Meadow & Grass plant Oil, Fiber & Horticulture Weeds & Ruderal plants Wetland plants

Figure 11. Ecocodes of the archaeobotanical material found in the ovens, graves and the two bog bodies.

Figure 11 presents the difference in ovens, graves and the two bog bodies of Tollund man and Grauballe man, with both presence/absence and their total data. The majority in all the bars are non-cultivated plants, with bog bodies having the least in both the presence/absence and in their total frequencies. The weed and ruderal plants have the largest presence of all features, but meadow and grass plants retain a higher presence in the presence/absence staples. Wetland plants have relatively low frequencies in all features, although more apparent in presence/absence.

Roughly 40% of the total composition in the ovens are of cultivated species. A large amount of oil, fibre & horticulture in the ovens are from large finds of Camelia sativa, and thus, smaller in the presence/absence. The wetland plants are also more representative in the presence/absence than in the oven than in the raw data staple.

The graves have almost 20% of cultivated species in both presence/absence and in the raw data. Gathered plants (5%) and meadow and grass plants (20%) are more representative in the presence/absence while in the raw data the weeds and ruderal plants are in clear majority. The wetland plants are also more represented in the presence/absence bar.

The two bog bodies have the smallest amount of cultivated species in their composition. They have no gathered plant species, but large amounts of weeds and ruderal plants and roughly 5%

32 of oil, fibre and horticulture plants. The wetland plants are less than 10%, while meadow and grass plants are 15-20%.

Figure 12. Bar chart of the botanical remains of the features

Figure 12 shows the abundance of the different botanical remains found in all the features. There is a clear representation of Hordeum vulgare var. nudum. The oven CO.2349 from the Late Bronze Age contains the more than 25 000 grains and, thus, is in clear majority. The Spergula arvensis consists of up towards 15 000 seeds, followed by Camelina sativa.

5. Discussion

5. 1 How do the archaeobotanical remains in ovens used for drying grains change through the Iron Age and how do they compare to the agricultural landscape of south Scandinavia?

It is difficult to answer how and why changes in agriculture took place during the prehistory. However, when and where it took place is easier to differentiate as we have a solid background of archaeobotanical data (Grabowski 2014:17). Different views of as to why have been debated and a single cause of event have not been able to justify the change of agricultural practices. There have been many discussions on whether a climatic deterioration was the sole cause or other natural and anthropogenic factors was in play (Hjelmqvist 1992, de Jong & Lagerås 2011).

The archaeobotanical remains from ovens have most likely gone through several stages of threshing, cleaning, and sorting before being dried in an oven, all of which would have an impact on the recovered material (Viklund 1998:60).

During the Neolithic to Late Bronze Age, hulled barley was cultivated in smaller scale in parts of Denmark, although in general naked barley was the primary crop (Robinson 2003:145). The earlier cultivated grains such as emmer, spelt, and naked barley slowly succumbed to the cultivation of hulled barley (Grabowski 2013). Finds of hulled barley in Scania and in Zealand, however, shows that hulled barley was also an important crop in certain regions (Grabowski 2013:168). The oven CO.2349 from the Late Bronze Age was located in Zealand and contained a substantial part of hulled barley with an even greater amount of barley, Hordeum sp., thus, further suggesting to regional cultivation of hulled barley in the Late Bronze Age. This feature containing hulled barley could also indicate a specialised purposed. Some have argued that a switch to hulled barley can be seen already in the Late Bronze Age (Henriksen 2003), which the earliest oven could potentially indicate as seen in figure 4 and 5. The Late Bronze Age oven CO.2349 is most likely a drying of cereal event that accidentally became carbonized through fire as it has an incredibly high amount of barley compared to any other feature and plant (see figure 6 and 12). Furthermore, the ovens contained no records of weed seeds, though this may be a question of where the samples were taken from and of how it the oven was analysed.

From Pre-Roman Iron age until the Roman Iron, naked barley is the most common crop. The naked barley in the oven samples, in figure 5 and 6, occurs all the way until the Early Roman Iron Age, although only as very few seeds. Late Roman Iron Age – Early Germanic Iron Age ovens also have two seeds of naked barley but contains more seeds of hulled barley. Grains of Hordeum sp. have a large presence though it is dangerous to draw species conclusions of these seeds as they are too fragmented to distinguish to either species. Arguably the large amount of Hordeum sp. in the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age – Early Roman Iron age could be of naked barley though they were unable to be more interpreted that to the species. It is worth noting that some of the periods have only one oven or they contain very few finds of cereals.

The transition from naked barley to hulled barley was most likely not a question of availability of grains, as the change of cereal was also not being implement at the same time all over south Scandinavia and it was cultivated in earlier times in certain regions. During the early Roman warm period in the Roman Iron Age, parts of Denmark still cultivated naked barley, while other parts had switched to hulled barley (Grabowski 2014:17). One reason for switching from naked barley might be that it is more susceptible to a parasite and insect infestation compared to hulled barley, so in more humid climate this may have had a play a part of the change (Buxo I Capdevila et al. 1997).

Arguments concerning different processing and harvesting techniques could have brought upon a switch from naked to hulled barley has also been suggested. The fact that hulled barley grains tend to be more steadily attached to the spikelets, and thus may have given a more flexible time of harvest is also a possibility of change (Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003). The start of manuring may also be a reason for the gradual change from naked to hulled barley as has been proposed by Engelmark (1998). The use of manuring is argued to be more beneficial for hulled barley than naked barley. Together with the iron sickles introduced, the straws of the cereal enabled the gathering of animal fodder and further benefitted the manuring capability (Viklund 1998). The increase in certain weed species, that prefers soils rich in nitrogen, is in accordance with such a hypothesis. Although huge quantities of certain weed species may indicate gathering, or even cultivation, of weed species, may have taken place instead of manuring (Grabowski 2014:18). Other researchers have argued that manure was not a decisive change of cultivation of hulled barley instead of naked barley. Nor that manuring was a new agriculture technique, but rather had existed earlier, albeit in perhaps a smaller scale (Lagerås & Regnell 1999).

Explanations that a different type of food is more easily accessible and used have also been used as a hypothesis for switching cereals in the late Bronze and early Iron Age. Skoglund (1999) argues that perhaps a crushed type of grain paste was eaten rather than a bread-based cuisine. He further argues that crushing, instead of grinding, the grains would symbolize and reflect the treatment of a deceased person. Although the introduction of the rotary querns would potentially over time switch to bread-based cuisine around 200 AD (Zachrisson 2014). Hulled barley has also been discussed in relation with an increase in beer consumption (Grabowski 2014:20).

Secale cereale, rye, is a plant that starts to become more and more common during the Iron Age in southern Scandinavia. It is, however, in the latter half of the Iron Age that rye becomes a major crop (Grabowski 2014:22). As rye is also able to grow as weed species amongst other cereals, it is hard to prove an exact time of cultivation (Behre 1992). Early finds of rye, Secale cereale, are sometimes ascribed to be of an intruding species in the fields. The few finds in the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age – Early Roman Iron Age can potentially be seen as a weed species as it is only two grains found. It is during the Late Roman Iron Age - Early Germanic Iron Age that rye becomes a more dominant species both in the analysed oven CO.348 and according to other studies (Grabowski 2014:49). Archaeobotanical analysis of iron extraction furnaces have shown that rye was potentially cultivated already in the Roman Iron Age (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003). The majority of the cultivated species found in iron- extraction furnaces are rye and hulled barley. Oven CO.348 contains 118 grains of rye and 131 rachis fragments of rye. This would suggest that an intended cultivation of rye took place. Therefore, the rye in the earlier phases that have low quantities can most likely be considered a weed species, albeit a not harmful but tolerated weed, as noted by Behre (1992:149). There are interestingly no finds of rye in the latter half of the Iron Age, as by then it was the major crop along with hulled barley (Robinson 1994). Although rye is argued to have been one of two major crops in the latter half of the Iron Age, rye is only found in one oven in large quantities. This could be because there are too few ovens found from these periods, or perhaps rye was being dried in a different manner.

The fact that rye is possible to cultivate on poorer soils may be one of the reasons for the start of rye cultivation (Grabowski 2014:23). As rye is thought to have been sown during the autumn, while barley would have been sown during spring are signs of a rotating agriculture taking place instead of a settlement slowly migrating (Grabowski 2014). There were no finds

36 of Agrostemma githago or Bromus secalinus that would suggest crop-rotations with rye nor wheat (Grabowski 2013:190).

Oat is well represented in the Early Roman Iron Age, albeit not being a common crop in Denmark during the said period (Grabowski 2014). As it is hard to differentiate between the oat species as it is only by the glume base it is possible to distinguish them apart. Thus, whether or not it is the weed species Avena fatua or the cultivated Avena sativa is hard to tell. The glume base is, furthermore, rarely preserved along with the grain (Viklund 1998). One criterion for assuming that the grains are Avena sativa has been a large and clean find of Avena sp. (Grabowski 2013:173). The three ovens from Pre-Roman Iron Age contains relatively large finds of oats (32-194 grains), thus this could indicate an early cultivation of oats. Oat only becomes common in Denmark during the Early Medieval Period but cultivated earlier in southwest Sweden (Grabowski 2013). The oven dated to the Viking Age – Medieval Period contains 560 grains of Avena sp. and 33 grains of Avena sativa. The large amounts of Avena sp. could, therefore, be cautiously interpreted as the cultivated Avena sativa instead of Avena fatua. The dating of the oven would also suggest that it is an adaptation of large-scale oat farming.

It has been suggested that oats are cultivated on soils with fewer nutrients due to large amounts of Spergula arvensis found together, and it may hint towards depleted or low nutrients in the soil (Jensen & Hambro Mikkelsen 2006).

Wheat Triticum sp., is known to have been cultivated to a great extent during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, while slowly falling out of fashion in the Iron Age (Grabowski 2013:193). It is considered to have been more a luxury type of grains in the latter half of the Iron Age, especially bread wheat Triticum aestivum as it produced a finer and more porous bread (Hansson 1997:41,45). There are on a few ovens that contains Triticum. In the Pre- Roman Iron Age, CO.125 contain Triticum aestivum, Triticum diococcum glume bases and a few grains of emmer/spelt, Triticum diocuccum/spelta. The large number of emmer wheat glume bases suggest that the few grains would diococcum, although this is not certain. CO.POKS and CO.KS, dated to the latter half of the Iron Age, contains both bread wheat and emmer wheat. These ovens are from Uppåkra area and, therefore, could indicate high-status food consumption.

When a new cereal type or even a new farming technique is implemented, it is not always the case that it is implemented at other regions at the same time. Other sites may decide on a

37 different strategy or implementing the farming technique or cereal at a later time, as has been the case, even in southern Scandinavia (Grabowski 2014:15). Ovens with a majority of a certain cultivated species, but still having few grains of other cultivated species could indicate remains of previous drying events. Another more likely hypothesis is that few seed remain can be impurities in the field, instead of deliberate cultivation, as Grabowski (2013:187) has suggested.

The way that the fields were harvested would also factor in in the archaeobotanical remains. Some have argued that the low amount of weed seed in the Neolithic and Bronze Age features could be a result of harvesting the cereals high up on the straw. Similar theories about the harvesting by hand has been proposed to have taken place in the early agricultural history of Scandinavia (Engelmark 1992:371). Finds of tall growing weed species and the low amount of finds of low growing weed species, could also indicate this type of harvesting technique. Finds in Germany from Pre-Roman Iron Age sites and onwards shows larger amounts of weed species, suggesting that the straws were cut at a lower height. Presumably, the straws started to play a larger role in bedding, thatching and foddering (Viklund 1998:40,47).

Cutting the straws high up on the straw would give an abundance of weed species such as Fallopia convolvulus and Bromus secalinus as they are both tall growing. Spergula arvensis which is a shorter species would be more prevalent when cutting the cereals at a low height. The majority of the ovens shows a large abundance of Spergula arvensis in periods up to Early Roman Iron Age. Therefore, this could indicate a change in cutting strategies, although more archaeological remains and samples need to show similar trends before anything definite can be stated. Fallopia convolvulus does not, however, indicate a clear difference as it is a species that is presented in most periods of the ovens.

Medieval paintings show that both cutting the straws high up or low down have occurred in Scandinavia during the Medieval Period (Viklund 1998:43). It is also possible that different types of cereal have been harvested differently. Researchers have found that hand-plucking of wheat is easier than hand-plucking of barley, while barley has been concluded to be easier to harvest with a sickle (Engelmark 1992:371). Longer scythes that resemble historical ones are being introduced around the Viking Age would also certainly impact the botanical composition (Grabowski 2014:19).

Comparing certain weed species soil requirements against the dominating crop species may be fruitful as it may be able to differentiate between husbandry processes (Jones et al.

2010:72) though it may best serve as a general and indicative investigation (Grabowski 2013:174). The most common weed seeds during the Iron Age in western Sweden were Chenopodium album spp, Spergula arvensis, Stellaria media and Persicaria lapathifolium (Viklund 1998:137).

Depending on the soil pH level in the agrarian field, different types of weed species will thrive. In soils that have been manured, and therefore, have a higher content of nitrogen, are more likely to produce greater amounts of some weed species such as fat-hen (Chenopodium album). Other species e.g. Spergula arvensis and Rumex acetosella prefers acidic soils or soils with low nitrogen (Viklund 1998:45). However, one should keep in mind that some species are able to survive outside of what would be considered their natural habitats. The introduction of manuring in the Pre-Roman Iron Age would most likely have constituted to a large part of the weed composition as it would greatly affect the nitrogen level in the soils (Viklund 1998:47).

According to the weed seeds from ovens (see figure 7 and 8) from the Pre-Roman Iron Age, the cultivated species would have been grown on fields with high nitrogen content. Whether they were manured in the is difficult to say as the ovens from the period present large amounts of Spergula arvensis. The following period contains the largest amount of Spergula arvensis and thus more unlikely to have been a growing on a field with high nitrogen amount, which may be seen as signs of a depleting agricultural system with less productive fields. This could potentially force a change in the agricultural system.

The apparent decrease in Spergula arvensis from the Late Roman Iron Age is most likely brought upon by the start of manure, as has been also suggested (Viklund 1998). Chenopodium sp. has a similar frequency throughout the periods and can thus not indicate such a strong likelihood of an increase in manure as the decrease of Spergula arvensis does. The decrease in Spergula arvensis would thus be brought on by an increase in manure which is linked to the increasing cultivation on hulled barley. The drastic decrease of Spergula arvensis and other low-nutrient species has also been noted in other areas during the Iron Age. This could subsequently indicate a change to a fixed infield and outfield system from slow semi-mobile cultivation (Grabowski 2013:189). The latter half of the Iron Age also shows signs of fertile and manured field systems.

Interestingly both Chenopodium album and Spergula arvensis are one of the most abundant species in ovens and they are often found together. An explanation to this could be since the

39 ovens are built up of many scenarios it could represent a period of change in cereal crops in a rotating field system or a semi-mobile system. Thus, perhaps the Chenopodium seeds could indicate that the first years of cultivation and Spergula arvensis would start to increase in the fields as the nutrition depletes (Grabowski 2014).

Some weed seed is also more susceptible to heat. Chenopodium album is a common species found in Iron Ages sites. Although the seeds tend to be destroyed quite easily, the plant, however, can produce up to 30 000 seeds, while other plants can only produce around 100 seeds (Viklund 1998:106). Spergula arvensis is also a plant that can under favourable conditions produce between 1000 and 10 000 seeds (Karg 2012). A large number of indeterminable seed and charcoal remains can indicate a high temperature, most likely due to failed roasting attempts (Ross et al. 2016:243).

The difference in the way of the dispersal strategy of weed species is also something to consider. Some species are able to adapt to a slightly different environment in order to be more productive, e.g. a few species that grow in a high and dense crop field might grow longer. This will then, in turn, affect how the weed species distribute its seeds. The number of seeds and season that a species will also affect the outcome of distribution. In less dense fields, weed species are not required to grow tall in order to survive, and thus, they are more likely to grow more abundant (Viklund 1998:41).

Some ovens contain a variety of chaffs and awns which could indicate if the cleaning procedures had already been conducted prior to or after the drying. The higher the number of awns and chaffs, the more likely it is that the dried material has not been very well cleaned prior to drying. CO.17,190 contains almost 20% glume bases of Avena and is therefore more likely to have been less thoroughly cleaned than other ovens before drying.

The use of ovens is not the only way of drying cereals. Ethnohistorical accounts of Scandinavia describes many ways of drying the cereal grains. In Norway, it has been recorded accounts of people drying the cereals on a flat stone heated by fire and hung in containers from the ceiling over a fireplace. Drying grains in a kettle that is being stirred has also been recorded. In Finland, a special house, ria, was used to dry the seeds that were brought in before threshing. In Sweden, special houses for drying the grains have been recorded but these went out of practice during the late 19th century (Viklund 1998:91-92). In Irish archaeology, it has been suggested that corn-drying ovens are linked to the emerging of a social elite by centralising crop production (Kinsella 2008).

Further data needs to be added to give a clearer picture. Some of the time periods only have one oven as a comparison base and thus the data may be from just one farm that was mainly cultivating hulled barley or from just one part of the yearly harvest. The fact that one oven contained well over 25 000 grains of naked barley shows how important it is for many features to be analysed to give a well representative material.

5. 2 How do the archaeobotanical remains found in the ovens fit according to the current knowledge about Iron Age plant-based food?

It is thought that the agriculture of most Iron Age settlements was primarily used for the settlement’s own upkeep (Grabowski 2014:37). Archaeobotanical remains from rubbish and storages from settlement activities have been argued to mostly represent food procurement remains (Kirleis et al. 2012:234). Ovens can not only be used for drying but also have been used for roasting or cooking (Vanhanen & Mikkanen 2013). Thus, we can confidently say that the cereal grains found in the ovens are used for enabling both preparing and storing food. The bog bodies offer excellent opportunities to investigate meals consumed in the Iron Age as the plant remains have been ingested before death. Graves containing archaeobotanical remains are also a good indication of what may have been consumed (Hansson 1997).

The different cereals discussed earlier have certainly been intended for consumption. In the Early Roman Iron Age, it has been suggested that the humans had more cereal types to choose from than later periods. The use of weed species is also likely to have been utilized more in the Early Iron Age (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:145). The ovens contain an abundant amount of charred weed seeds as seen in figure 7, 8 and 11, although they are a bit more difficult to draw a definite conclusion whether or not they have been cultivated intendedly, gathered or simply residues from threshing. The remains of the ovens are only what has been left behind, although this indicates what has been dried.

Furthermore, there is a great number of both biological and anthropogenic factors that will contribute into the preservation and recorded material (Rohde Sloth et al. 2015). There is a clear inclination in trying to gather as many cereal grains from the ovens as possible once the drying is complete. Therefore, unless the weed seeds are also sought after, it is most likely that these seeds would not have been subjected to a time-consuming gathering. Nor would the weed seeds have been picked up if they fell out of a vessel.

Viklund (1998) has argued through her experimental studies that different weed species tend to be group differently when cleaning the crop through sieving, pouring or winnowing. This includes the prime grain, where the purest amount of cereal grains exists, while mid-grain fraction contains more weed seeds. The grain used for human consumption has been argued to perhaps not have been of the finest quality. Historical sources from the 18th century suggest that the cereals used for sowing the field for the next year were the finest seeds gathered with the least amount of weed seeds (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:134). For human consumption, the cereal may have contained weed seeds. The lowest quality with weed seeds was intended for bread or animals, while the finer quality was used for gruel, porridge, and beer (Viklund 1998:105). Many bog bodies seem to have ingested porridge or gruel before their deaths, and together with few indications of hard work, the bog bodies may have enjoyed a wealthier lifestyle although this cannot be state according to their last meal.

Viklund (1998:142) suggests that the cereals grown in the Late Iron Age was mostly intended for bread making. Porridge and grain-paste are more commonly crushed, whole, or lightly grinded, while bread is made by ground cereals (Hansson 1994:6). In archaeology, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between bread, porridge and other organic material that has been lumped together due to heat exposure (Hansson 2005).

One interpretation concerning graves in Birka containing bread could indicate a richer burial than average, while sex and age seem to be of less importance (Hansson 2005:4). The bread in graves is often found inside or in close relation to the grave urn, which may indicate a more valuable deposition (Hansson 1996:75). Although, the graves in Birka that have been investigated are all from cremated graves, as none of the inhumation grave have yielded finds of bread, most likely due to preservation. In Helgö, most bread consists of more than one type of grain. It is usual for the bread to be made out of barley or oat, and often those two together. In Birka, however, the bread found in graves are made of almost all types of cereals.

The majority of Pre-Roman Iron Age ovens contained both oats and barley, suggesting that these were widely used as food, and perhaps for making bread or other foodstuffs together. Wheat and bread wheat have a very low frequency, which suggests that it was not often cultivated, or in low quantities, for making a more high-status food.

The ovens from Late Iron Age Uppåkra contained sprouted seeds, it is possible that they were intended for beer making or that they were accidentally germinated and then afterwards dried

42 in the ovens. In order for producing beer, grain seeds that have sprouted for about 1 cm are then dried in order to stop the sprouting process (Viklund 1998:83).

Hillman (1981:27) notes that in Shetland and Orkney, roasting of cereals mixed with milk was used together with sour milk or buttermilk to make it tastier. There is little chance of finding the residue of milk in the stomach content of the bog bodies, but it is possible that a similar type of food was eaten.

There are certain weed seeds that have a larger abundance than that of other weed species found, such as Spergula arvensis, Chenopodium album, Persicaria sp. and Rumex acetosella. Therefore, by accepting Behres suggestion of large clean storage find along with often found in stomach contents for human consumption showed some indications to hold true. Chenopodium sp. is found in most of the samples, either as species determined or as Chenopodiaceae family with one oven presenting a total of 1688 seeds. Fallopia convolvulus was also found in most of the features. Polygonum lapathifolium has since his study changed its name to Persicaria lapathifolia and seeds of Persicaria is common as well throughout the ovens. Rumex acetosella and Spergula arvensis also boasting a huge number of seeds, with the latter a total of 6069 seeds in just one oven. Thus, these seeds would be likely to have been a part of the plant food intake, although to what degree of cultivation and gathering is hard to determine.

The ovens contain an abundant amount of charred weed seeds and arguments that clean and large storage finds of weed species such as Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia or Chenopodium sp., along with being regularly found in stomach of the bog bodies, are clear signs that certain weed species have been collected or even cultivated (Helbæk 1951). Storage finds of Chenopodium album and Persicaria sp. have also been suggested to be gathered deliberatly by Hambro Mikkelsen and Nørbach (2003:136). Though it can be impossible to say whether it was gathered in the field specifically or opportunistically gathered when threshing and sieving the cereals (Behre 2008). Some are seeds that are usually associated with discussions about both manuring and of deliberate cultivation, as discussed earlier.

Although suggested to have been a consumed weed, Glyceria fluitans, have not been found in the analysed ovens, grave nor in the stomach content of the two bog bodies (Behre 2008). Bromus sp. and Bromus mollis are the only of said genus found. However, Bromus sp. is found in two Pre-Roman Iron Age ovens in a relatively large abundance and several seeds Bromus mollis found in Grauballe man. Kirleis et al. (2012) grouped Chenopodium album,

Persicaria, and Bromus together with other gathered plants such as Malus (crab apple) and Rubus idaeus (raspberry), suggesting that many consider these plants to have been a large food resource, at least in the Neolithic. Behre (2008) further suggests these plants were gathered and eaten until the Iron Age and onwards.

Chenopodium species are also consistently found in the graves and in the bog bodies, suggesting that it was commonly eaten, as stated earlier. Although said seeds have both thick walls and preserves very well and are produced in extremely large quantities. Chenopodium album can produce up towards 30 000 seeds on a single plant while other species produce significantly less (Viklund 1998). The size of the seeds is something to keep in mind as weed seeds are usually a lot smaller. The size of a Spergula arvensis seed compared to a cereal grain, stipulates how difficult it could be to separate weed seeds from cereal grains.

In grave CG.231 Spergula arvensis, Persicaria lapathifolia/maculosa, Cyperaceae, flax, oats, and both naked and hulled barley along with large amounts of Cerealia and grains only identified as barley was found. Assuming that it was a deposition of food, there is a large quantity of weed seeds compared to the number of cereal grains. As it is a deposition in a grave, one can assume that it was meant for the afterlife or as a meal on the way to the afterlife. Thus, it possible that the weed seeds played a part in foodstuffs. Both bog bodies also contain large amounts of Spergula arvensis.

There are a few bulk-finds of weed seeds in Alrum, Denmark that has been interpreted as a deliberate gathering of weed seeds presented by Helbæk in the 1950s. A find of a large pot containing roughly 1 litre of Persicaria lapathifolium together with other weed seed e.g. Spergula arvensis and barley in much smaller quantities. This find has been interpreted as a deliberate gathering of said species (Helbæk 1959b:18). Another find that indicates deliberate gathering of weed species is from Nørre Fjand in Jutland. The find consisted of up to 1,5 litres of Chenopodium album, various other weed seed, and roughly 100 barley grains. Helbæk (1951) argues that this is a clear indication of selection-based gathering. Viklund (1998:77) suggests, however, that Nørre Fjand and the pot from Alrum could very well be that the weed seeds could be from crop processing instead of deliberate gathering. Arguments that the weed seeds were not as purely found as they first were claimed and that collecting the seeds from the field would cause unnecessary damage to the cereals grown in the same field has been put forward. However, both Viklund and Helbæk concludes that the weed seeds have been eaten as shown by the stomach content of the bog bodies (Viklund 1998:89).

Due to the high oil content of certain seeds may not have been roasted before consumption or other treatment (Karg 2012). Camelina sativa is known to have been produced for its oil, while Linum usitatissimum has been cultivated both for oil and for textile purposes (Hansson 1997:46). Both the production of oil and fibre is considered to have been demanding knowledge and equipment. Spergula arvensis is a species that may also have been cultivated for its oil (Karg 2012:20).

Camelina sativa started to be cultivated around the Late Bronze Age and reached its peak around the Roman Iron Age and slowly thereafter going out of fashion (Hansson 1997:48). Camelina sativa was, thus, more commonly grown during the Early Iron Age than the latter half. Albeit it can be difficult to differentiate whether or not this was as weeds or deliberate cultivation (Hansson 1996:72). The oven CO.A4343 is unusual as it contains a large amount of Camelia sativa seeds, both as individuals and fused together. The oven, furthermore, contains the largest amount of naked barley and large amounts of charcoal and Calluna steam fragments, suggesting that a failed drying event took place. It is likely that they were dried at the same time due to the high abundance of both species.

Finds of flax (Linum usitatissimum) dated back to around 800 BC in both Denmark and south Sweden and was an important plant for both as a fibre plant and for its oil. It is argued to have been mostly used as an oil plant at first and then around 200 AD, it is believed to have been cultivated for textile purposes (Viklund 2011). Flax is also frequently found together with seeds of Camelina sativa, which it does for the majority of the analysed features that contains these oil seeds. Both in the bog bodies and in three ovens do both seeds occur together. While flax increases in cultivation, Camelia sativa is thought to decrease in importance during the Iron Age, which the analysed features also indicate. Flax is thought to have been a symbol for both fertility and death as it often frequented in charred bread found in graves (Hansson 1997) and also occurs in graves (Viklund 2011). CG.231 contains 43 seeds of flax and CG.A1:1 contains one seed, which is likely to have been deposited in the graves.

Wild plants, fruits, and seed should be gathered in the autumn as they are both ripe and contain more nutrition. Fruits and berries must be dried or fermented to be able to be preserved throughout the year. Although there are certain berries that preserve rather well without any active handling e.g. cranberries (Vaccinium oxycoccos), cowberries (Empetrum nigrum), and bearberries (Arctostaphylos) (Hansson 1997). Seeds from Fragaria vesca and seeds from the Vaccinium family are often too small to be caught in the sieves but have most

45 likely been gathered and eaten (Kark & Robinson 2002:137). Therefore, sieves with smaller mesh sizes than 0.5 mm, would potentially result in finding more seeds of smaller size. There are no seeds of Fragaria vesca, Juniperus sp., or Rubus idaeus in the ovens. It is likely that these berries did not get dried in the ovens but preserved differently. These seeds, on the other hand, appear in grave CG.1063.

Weed species and cereal are relatively common on sites since the Neolithic onwards. There are, however, several species and families that do not leave such clear evidence of cultivation. Many vegetables such as cabbage, carrots, peas, onions, and turnips are rarely found in archaeobotanical records. This is most likely due to them being harvested before they flower, and their seeds are released, nor likely to come in contact with enough heat to preserve them (Karg & Robinson 2002, Karg 2007). Certain vegetables exist in the historical records of laws and Icelandic sagas (Hansson 1997:47). Onions, along with flax, are referenced together in Scandinavia as early as the 4th century AD (Viklund 2011:513). As such, these species have a clear potential to have been cultivated in earlier periods as well. Research also suggests that the medieval food tradition was persistent and not changing very much, albeit an introduction of new species, by the Hanseatic League, that was first and foremost adopted by the wealthier (Karg 2007).

5. 3 What kind of similarities and differences are there between the ovens, graves, and bog bodies in terms of archaeobotanical remains and can any ritual meal be discerned?

Comparing the different structures between each other should only be seen as an exploratory investigation, especially considering an inter-comparison of the three categories. Each of these three feature types are different and have different taphonomical problems. Burials are furthermore a type of structure that was practiced before, during and after the ritual act of bog bodies, which predominantly took place in the early Iron Age. Burials are also complex due to there could be several types of burials taking place during the same period (Steinsland 2007: 379). The social status of the deceased would also impact upon, not only what kind, but also and how elaborate the burial system would be (Inall & Lillie 2018). However, most burials share a potentiality of indications of consumption habits.

The comparison between the ovens is discussed earlier showing a similar trend as the rest of the agricultural landscape and its changes. The ovens in the Jaccard based dendrogram (figure 10 (A)) are mostly grouped together according to time periods. Ovens from adjacent time periods are closely grouped together, as a result of having similar seed compositions. The ovens from PRIA – eRIA contain several of the cereals and weed species and thus bear a resemblance between each other. Therefore, CO.12357 and CG.15248 are grouped together with some of the ovens from PRIA – eRIA as they have similar species. CG.15248 is furthermore the only grave that is closely related to the ovens, due to it having a similar species composition.

The Bray-Curtis based dendrogram (figure 10 (B)), presents grouping through the abundance of species and thus features with high numbers of the same species will group together. Therefore, species with the same cereals and weed species are grouping together if they are similarly abundant. As discussed above, certain weed species are more frequent depending on the cultivated cereals. Therefore, ovens containing e.g. hulled barley, and it subsequent weed flora, (CO.2349, CO.17,19, CO.POKS, CO.KS, and CO.348 (though rye as the majority)) are grouped together. The huge amount of naked barley in CO.A4343 is most likely the reason for it being an outliner. Grave CG.231 is the only grave that is closely related to ovens, i.e. oven CO.2743 and CO.A1460. CG. 231 was the grave with the highest amount of grains and cereals, resembling more the amount found in an oven. The other graves had a lot fewer grains and weed seeds.

In the cluster analysis (figure 10), both bog bodies are fairly correlated to each other in (A), although they are correlating much more in (B). As (A) investigates a potential relationship through the presence and absence of species and as the stomach content of Grauballe man contained over 50 weed species seeds from different biotopes, this could hint that his meal might have been more special. Especially considering that Tollund man only had 19 different weed species. Thus, Tollund man might have eaten a more mundane last meal. Worth noting is that Grauballe man only had a few seeds of the weed species that grew in different biotopes (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:205).

The Bray-Curtis analysis (figure 10 (B)), correlates the abundance and suggests that the bog body individuals ate roughly the same amount of weed seeds and grains. Comparing the bog bodies to the graves and ovens in the cluster analysis, the bog bodies are quite separated from the ovens and graves, suggesting no clear correlation.

Most likely contain the graves a burial of people who had plenty of resources and thus had a greater chance of receiving both a proper burial and grave gifts. However, it is important to remember that some burials may also contain malnourished or less wealth people who may not have had the resources for a costly burial. Investigation of bones from inhumation graves can sometimes yield a cause of death, whether it was by violence or disease. Malnutrition is not always presented by signs in bones, but starvation can also leave a human more easily susceptible to disease, which may factor into their social position as the high-status people may have had more opportunities to acquire nutrition (Dennell 1979:132).

Not only the archaeobotanical material, but also certain objects, indicate the use of plants. Drinking horns, glass beaker, and other vessels indicates that ceremonial drinking of mead, beer or wine could have taken place, however, not necessarily in close vicinity of the grave (Hansson 1997:59) as is also described by Ibn Fadhlan earlier (Montgomery 2000). However, one cannot assume that the rituals concerning deposition in graves have been the same throughout the Iron Age. Not only did the cultivated cereals change but it is also likely that deposition, or lack of depositions, changed.

Some graves lack a larger amount of archaeobotanical material and thus leads interpretation of a more symbolic deposition. Perhaps was the deposited material meant to only represent a part of the meal or for other usages in the afterlife, while the grave from Postgården represents a whole meal. Although this may also be a question of preservation or other explanations. Depositional and post-depositional processes are known to be quite complex for both

48 domestic and burial sites (Kirleis et al. 2012:224). Graves may contain several burials, as the Vendlas mound, and Para did. This will then factor into a large degree on the interpretation.

Rich people could eat a lot of meat and were given it in their graves, while burials for less wealthy people could be given plant food, although the two bog bodies are more likely to have given a special meal rather than being vegetarians (Glob 1969:42, 106). Hence the food of the two bog bodies suggests a simpler food while their physic suggests that they have not done a lot of manual work and could be interpreted as not having a need to attend their own fields (Glob 1969).

The bog bodies are in direct contrast to the usual funeral rituals of the Early Iron Age. During this period, it was most common to cremate the bodies (Fischer 1999:97). There are several theories as to why the individuals were killed and deposited in bogs. As mentioned above, Tacitus suggests that they may have been homosexuals, having an infectious disease, or as a punishment for desertion. Others suggest that due to the way Tollund Man had been carefully laid down, some of the bog bodies may have offered to the gods for either peat or iron, as both were gathered in bogs. Bogs are believed to be the dwelling places of the gods in the Early Iron Age. Grauballe Man, however, could have faced another scenario as his throat had been cut (Fischer 1999).

There are too few bog bodies found for an interpretation of annual or regular rituals involving sacrificing people in bogs. There may have been an event or crises which lead people to do these rituals. The individuals may even have been willing to be killed as suggested by some researchers (Turner 1999:233). Bradley (2005) suggest that agriculture often have a ritualistic, and sometimes, underlaying tone. Ethnographical studies from Incan graves in South America suggests that sacrificed individuals had eaten a ritual meal or even a diet before being sacrificed (Wilson et al. 2007). It is hard to say whether or not a meal was ritually consumed on the basis of the archaeobotanical remains. Whether this is the case for the bog bodies and their stomach content is hard to draw any definite conclusions on, as it depends on the desired outcome of the meal. The meal consumed before death may have been of similar ingredients to a normal mundane meal, but had a more ceremonial tone to it, as it was the last meal.

The remains in Grauballe man’s stomach contained traces of a potentially fatal fungus. The fungus Claviceps purpurea can be deadly in large quantities while in lower quantities it may give muscle spasms, burning sensation in limbs, hallucinations and gangrene. The fungus is

49 usually found in the grass family and can thus exist in cereals. Especially rye is considered to be easily subjected to it (Hambro Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003:121).

Both Tollund Man and Grauballe Man are so well preserved, that both of them had to been deposited in colder water, e.g. in winter or early spring. This is further indicated by the fact that no summer or autumn berries and fruits were found in their stomach contents (Coles & Coles 1989: 181, 184. Helbæk 1959). Therefore, perhaps the number of weed seeds was used due to a depleting amount of cereals stocked or as a poor man’s food. An assumption that the meal eaten by Tollund man or Grauballe man was the standard meal should be taken with some care as it is a single meal eaten hour before a sacrifice (Dennell 1979:128, 130). As the seeds had no signs of burning, the seeds are most likely not been roasted or burned and therefore, not likely to have been made it to bread. There is also the possibility that the meal had milk, honey or salt, but these have left little to no trace.

Grauballe Man had consumed a meal consisting of barley, spelt, emmer and oats. The wild species were of willow-herb, buttercup, yarrow, smooth hawksbeard, rye-grass, brome grass, clover, camomile, lady’s mantle, goosefoot, and black nightshade. Several of these wild species are not local to the area of the bog. There were only a few traces of Grauballe man’s meal that indicated meat and some animal hair (Coles & Coles 1989: 181). The stomach content of Tollund Man contained the cultivated plants barley, wheat and flax which had been grinded. The wild plants consisted of hemp nettle, willow-herb, plantago, spurrey, gold-of- pleasure.

Figure 11 shows the Ecocodes of the plant remains found in the three feature types. The bar presenting the total remains from the oven shows the majority of cereals in the cultivated plants. Arguably, the oil, fibre and horticultural plants would also fall into this category suggesting a more abundant presence of plants that are definitely cultivated and consumed during these periods. The weeds and ruderals would most likely have grown in the same field as the cereals and may even have been intentionally gathered as discussed earlier. Compared to the graves and bog bodies, the ovens contain a much higher presence of consumed plants, composing of almost 60%. Bog bodies and graves contain a similar division of Ecocodes, although the bog bodies have slightly more meadow and grass seeds and fewer wetland plants. It has been suggested that the seeds from the wetland plants would likely been sought after as they do not grow near the house or field (Helbæk 1959). Thus, wetland plants could also have be ritually deposited into the graves. The species with most seeds in weeds and ruderals is Spergula arvensis, with almost 3000 seeds in one grave (CG.231) from early 50

Germanic Iron Age. The large amount could represent a deposition, but as the grave was a cremation grave it is also possible that the seeds are originating from the pyres. The grave also contained a lot of Calluna stems which would have made good kindling material. On the other hand, the grave also contained more than 900 cereals of which most was Hordeum sp. and Avena sp., along with 43 Linum usitatissimum seeds. Thus, the cereals and flax would most likely be a deposition, and therefore, the Spergula arvensis could fall into this category as well. The gathered species are mostly due to Corylus avellana and is noted is several features except bog bodies that contain no gathered species. There are several species of meadow and grass plants as seen in presence/absence, but they are few in numbers.

Worth remembering in the frequencies concerning the bog bodies is that the plant remains are not accurate, but rather an estimation of what they contained. As with the other graphs, they work best with a presence/absence analysis. The presence/absence part of the graphs shows that the bog bodies ate fewer species of cereals compared to graves and ovens, though this is most likely due to fact that there are only two bog bodies from the same period compared to multiple graves and ovens from several periods containing several cereal species.

There are difficulties when dealing with samples or features with a low amount of remains to draw conclusions, especially between ritual and accidental deposition of plant remains (Kirleis 2012:236). Depending on the intended outcome of an event, it may be a ritual act (Bradley 2005:119-120). This has also been considered with plants, as Kirleis et al. (2012:237) suggest that a plant can both have an economical and a ritual aspect to it, which depends on what the desired outcome is. This, in turn, is very difficult due to taphonomic reasons and difficulty to discern as the intent cannot be noted in the archaeobotanical analysis, but rather only what material has been used.

Since the oven material is directly connected to what is believed to have been eaten during prehistory, and the stomach content of bog bodies contributes to this belief, it is important that there is further research in to whether some meals had ritual tones to it or if there is a more pragmatic reasoning behind the weeds in ovens and bog bodies. Systematically sampling and analysing graves and making the results and data easily accessible would be of great use in the research on food depositions. A comparison of the animal contra plant consumption pattern and would further develop our understanding on both consumption and deposition.

6. Conclusion

The ovens and changes in their contents are relatively straight forward to analyse and interpret. On the other hand, it is often hard to find a simple correlation between a particular social activity and special food or meal, as cereals, for example, can be used in a number of ways for both daily meals to special events (Palmer & van der Veen 2002:199). Nevertheless, an attempt to find correlation between archaeobotanical remains from Iron Age ovens and ritualistically interpreted features was carried out successfully.

Different cereals have been eaten throughout the periods with Late Bronze Age ovens indicating Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare as indicated by the oven remains. This was followed by a phase of Hordeum vulgare var. nudum until the Roman Iron Age when Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare became the most common crop cultivated. This cultivation continued until the Viking Age, when Avena sativa was the only crop cultivated according to the analysed ovens. This species had, however, been cultivated in smaller scales up until the Medieval Period. Secale cereale appears only a handful of time and mostly in small quantities except for one oven in late Roman Iron Age – early Germanic Iron Age. Triticum species also appears in several ovens and times, mostly in Pre-Roman Iron Age and the latter part of the Iron Age.

These cereals and weed species are found in both bog bodies and as well in several graves suggesting some correlation between a deposition or for consumption both before death or as a meal in the afterlife. The dendrograms, however, yielded little conclusive results, although one grave from the early Germanic Iron Age was closely related to ovens from Pre-Roman Iron Age and one from late Pre-Roman Iron Age – early Roman Iron Age. This could, thus, show potential in food culture, both in daily life and in ritualistically deposited gifts. The stomach content of Tollund Man and Grauballe Man was foremost grouped together, while the ovens and graves were more clustered together, indicating a stronger correlation.

The cereals cultivated through time also affected the composition of the weed species which not only reflect the changes in the agriculture but can also indicate food remains. Several of the weed species found in the ovens are likely to have been consumed, as has been suggested by other researchers as well. The weeds Chenopodium album, Fallopia convolvulus, Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia, Plantago lanceolata, Poacea, Polygonum aviculare, and Spergula arvensis, found both in ovens and in the graves and bog bodies, seems to have been a fairly common meal as they occur in all three feature types and most features (Behre 2008). The weed species usually grows in the field along with the cereals and thus they were perhaps

52 not an unwelcome sight in the meal. The bog bodies also contain species that usually grows in wetland areas hinting towards a more cumbersome gathering and possibly a ritual indication. Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who reconstructed the meal, commented, however, that Tollund man probably committed suicide as to not eat another spoonful of his porridge.

References

Arwidsson G. 1984. Haselnüsse und Kerne, in Arwidsson, G. (ed.), Birka II:1. Systematishe Analysen der Gräberfunde. Stockholm, 273 – 274. Behre K-E. 1992. The history of rye cultivation in Europe. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 1: 141 – 156. Behre K-E. 2008. Collected seeds and fruits from herbs as prehistoric food. Vegetational history & Archaeobotany 17: 65 – 73. Bennike P. 1999. The early Neolithic bog finds: a strange group of people. In: J.B. Coles/J. Coles/M.S. Jørgensen (eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Archaeology. WARP Occasional paper 12 (Exeter 1999), 27 – 32. Bloch J. A., Robinson D., Christensen C. 1999. Almosen Denmark – A ritual nog site from the 1st millennium BC. In: J.B. Coles/J. Coles/M.S. Jørgensen (eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Archaeology. WARP Occasional paper 12 (Exeter 1999), 121 – 123. Brink S., Price N. (red.). 2008. The Viking World. Abingdon: Routledge. Buckland P., Sjölander M., Eriksson E. 2018. Strategic Environmental Archaeology Database (SEAD). In: Smith C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY. Buxo I Capdevila R., Alonso N., Canal D., Echave C., González I. 1997. Archaeobotanical remains of hulled and naked cereals in the Iberian Peninsula. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 6: 15 – 23. Coles B., Coles J. 1989. People of the wetlands: bogs, bodies and lake-Dwellers. London: Thames & Hudson. Delany M., O’Floinn R., Heckett E. 1999. Bog Body from Clongownagh, Baronstown West, County Kildare, Ireland. In: J.B. Coles/J. Coles/M.S. Jørgensen (eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Archaeology. WARP Occasional paper 12 (Exeter 1999), 67 – 68. Dennell R. W. 1979. Prehistoric Diet and Nutrition: Some Food for Though. World Archaeology 11. No. 2 Food and Nutrition, 121 – 135. De Jong R., Lagerås P. 2011. Exploring the patterns and causes of land use changes in southwest Sweden. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(1): 15 – 27. Engelmark R. 1992. A review of the farming economy in South Scania based on botanical evidence. In L. Larsson, J. Callmer, B. Stjernqvist (eds), The Archaeology of the Cultural Landscape. Field work and Research in a South Swedish Rural Region. Acta Archaeologica Lundesia. Series in 4. No. 19. Lund. Engelmark, R. 1998. Fähus i förhistorien. En miljöhistorisk introduktion. In: K. Viklund et al. (eds). Fähus. Från bronsålder till idag. Skrifter om skogs- och lantbrukshistoria 12. Lund, 7 – 13.

Evince (Version 2.7.10). 2019. [Computer program] Umeå: Prediktera AB, Uminova Innovation http://prediktera.se/#evince Fischer C. 1999. The Tollund Man and the Elling Woman – and other bog bodies from Central Jutland. In: J.B. Coles/J. Coles/M.S. Jørgensen (eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Archaeology. WARP Occasional paper 12 (Exeter 1999), 93 – 98. Glob P. V. 1969. The bog people: iron-age man preserved. New York: Ballantine Books. Glob P. V. 1970. Højfolket: bronzealderens mennesker bevaret i 3000 år. København: Gyldendal. Grabowski R. 2013. Cereal cultivation in east-central Jutland during the Iron Age, 500 BC– AD 1100. Danish Journal of Archaeology 2(2): 164 – 196. Grabowski R. 2014. Cereal husbandry and settlement: expanding archaeobotanical perspectives on the southern Scandinavian Iron Age. Diss. (sammanfattning) Umeå : Umeå Universitet, 2014. Grabowski R. 2015. Arkeobotanisk analys av två hus och en ugnsanläggning från yngre romersk/germansk järnålder. Report Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab, Moesgaard Museum. Nr. 19. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 9pp. http://palaeo- electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm Hammer Ø. 2013. PAST paleontological statistics, version 3.0: reference manual. University of Oslo. Hansson A-M. 1994. Grain-paste, Porridge and Bread. Ancient cereal-based food. Laborativ Arkeologi 7. Hansson A-M. 1995. The bread from Ljunga in Central Sweden. New analyses. Laborativ Arkeologi 8. Hansson A-M. 1996. Bread in Birka and on Björkö. Laborativ Arkeologi 9: 61 – 78. Hansson A-M. 1997. On plant food in the Scandinavian peninsula in early medieval times. Theses and papers in archaeology 8:5. Arkeologiska Forskningslaboratoriet, Stockholms universitet. Hansson A-M. 2005a. Pre – and protohistoric bread in Sweden : a definition and a review. Civilisations 49. Hansson A-M. 2005b. Buried plants – Fossil plant remains from two Early Medieval burial mounds in east-central Sweden. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 15: 39 – 56. Hambro Mikkelsen P., Nørbach L. C. 2003. Drengsted: bebyggelse, jernproduktion og agerbrug i yngre romersk og ældre germansk jernalder. Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab.

Hambro Mikkelsen P. 2003b. Arkæobotanisk gennemgang af materiale fra brandgrave, dateret til omkring 500 f.Kr. Report Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab, Moesgaard Museum. Nr. 6.

Helbæk H. 1951. Ukrudtsfrø som næringsmiddel. Kuml, 1(1): 65 – 74. Helbæk H. 1959. Grauballemandens sidste måltid. Köpenhamn. Helbæk H. 1959b. Comment on Chenopodium album as a food plant in prehistory. Berichte des Geobotanishen Institutes der Eidg. Techn. Hochschule, Stiftung Rübel. Heiss A. G., Hansson A-M. 2014. Plants used in Ritual Offerings and in Festive Contexts. In Chevalier A., Marinova E., Peña-Chocarro L. (eds.) Plants and People: Choices and Diversity through Time, Chapter 7.1. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 311 – 334. Hillman G. C. 1981. Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops. In: R. Mercer (ed). Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh, 123 – 162. Hillman G. C. 1984. Interpretation and archaeological plant remains: The application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: W. van Zeist and W. Casparie (eds). Plants and ancient man. Rotterdam, 1 – 41. Hitch S. 2015. Anthropology and Food Studies. In: J. Wilkins, R. Nadeau (Hrsg.), A Companion to Food in the Ancient World. Chichester, 116 – 122. Høyem A. M. 2015. Makrofossilanalyser af en staklade, huse, gruber og ovne fra yngre bronzealder til yngre germansk jernalder. Report Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab, Moesgaard Museum. Nr. 3. Høyem A. M. 2016. Arkæobotanisk analyse af makrofossiler fra huse, kældre, en ovn og en mulig grav fra romersk og germansk jernaldern. Report Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab, Moesgaard Museum. Nr. 14. Inall Y., Lillie M. 2018. Deep in Time: Meaning and Mnemonic in Archaeological Studies of Death. University of Hull.

Jensen J. 1982. The Prehistory of Denmark. London: Methuen.

Jensen P. M., Hambro Mikkelsen P. 2006. FHM 4296/144, Kildebjerg I, Arkæobotanisk undersøgelse af SBM 983, Kildebjerg I. Rapport for Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab, Moesgaard Museum 1:2006.

Jensen P. M., Hambro Mikkelsen P. 2009. Arkæobotanisk og vedanatomisk analyse fra forkullet havrefund fra sen vikingetid/tidlig middelalder. Report Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab Moesgård Museum. Nr. 16. Jensen P. M. 2015b. KØM 3011, Energinet (FHM 4296/1726) Arkæobotanisk analyse af materiale fra ovngrube fra overgangen mellem yngre bronzealder og førromersk jernalder. Rapport for Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab, Moesgaard Museum 11:2015. Jolliffe I. T. 2002. Principal Component Analysis. Ed. 2. New York. Springer.

Jones G., Charles M., Bogaard A., Hodgson J. 2010. Crops and weeds: the role of weed functional ecology in the identification of crop husbandry methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 70 – 77.

Karg S., Robinson D.E. 2002. Secondary food plants from medieval sites in Denmark: fruits, nuts vegetables, herbs and spices. In: K. Viklund and R. Engelmark (eds). Nordic Archaeobotany – NAG 2000 in Umeå. Archaeology and Environment, 15, Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Archaeology and Sami Studies, University of Umeå, 133 – 142.

Karg S. 2007. Long term dietary traditions: archaeobotanical records from Denmark dated to the Middle Ages and early modern times. In: S. Karg (ed.) Medieval Food Traditions in Northern Europe. PNM Series of the National Museum of Denmark. Studies in Archaeology and History 12, 137 – 159.

Karg S. 2012. Oil-rich seeds from prehistoric contexts in southern Scandinavia – reflections on archaeobotanical records of flax, hemp, gold of pleasure, and corn spurrey. Acta Palaeobotanica 52(1): 17 – 24.

Karg S., Lund Hansen U., Walldén A. M., Glastrup J., Ærenlund Pedersen H., Sonne Nielsen F. O. 2014. Vegetal grave goods in a female burial on Bornholm (Denmark) from the Late Roman Iron Age period interpreted in a comparative European perspective. Danish Journal of Archaeology 3(1): 52 – 60.

Kinsella J. 2008. New discoveries and fresh insights: researching early medieval archaeology on the M3 in County Meath. In: J. O'Sullivan and M. Stanley (eds), Roads, rediscovery and research. Dublin, 95 – 107.

Kirleis W., Klooß S., Kroll H., Müller J. 2012. Crop growing and gathering in the northern German Neolithic: a review supplemented by new results. Vegetation History & Archaeobotany. 21: 221 – 242.

Krebs C. J. 2014. Ecological Methodology, 3rd ed. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

Lagerås, P. and Regnell, M., 1999. Agrar förändring under sydsvensk bronsålder. En diskussion om skenbara samband och olösta gåtor. In: M. Olausson (ed). Spiralens öga. Tjugo artiklar kring aktuell bronsåldersforskning. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, 263 – 276.

Lagerås P. 2016. Från trädgård till grav: växterna i biskop Peder Winstrups kista. Ale 4: 15 – 28.

Larsson L., Svensson A., Apel J. 2018. Botanical evidence of malt for beer production in fifth-seventh century Uppåkra, Sweden. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11: 1 – 2.

Mossberg B., Stenberg L. 2010. Den nya nordiska floran. Ny utg. Stockholm: Bonnier fakta.

Metheny K. B., Beaudry M. C. (red.). 2015. Archaeology of food: an encyclopedia. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Nylén B. 2000. Nordens flora. 2. uppl. Stockholm: Prisma.

Palmer C., van der Veen M. 2002. Archaeobotany and the social context of food. Acta Palaeobotanica 42(2): 195 – 202.

Pedersen E.A., Widgren M. 2004. Järnålder 500 f.Kr. – 1000 e. Kr. In: S. Welinder, E.A. Pedersen, M. Widgren (eds), Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Jordbrukets första femtusen år. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 239 – 459. Regnell M. Växtoffer. En förbisedd fyndkategori i huslämningar. Carpe Scaniam. Axplock ur Skånes förflutna. Lund. Robinson D. 1994 Plants and Vikings: Everyday Life in Viking Age Denmark. Botanical journal of Scotland 46(4): 542 – 551. Rohde Sloth P., Lund Hansen U., Karg S. 2015. Viking Age garden plants from southern Scandinavia – diversity, taphonomy and cultural aspects. Danish Journal of Archaeology 1(1): 27 – 38. Ross C., Gardiner L. F., Brogan G., Russ H. 2016. Post-Roman crop production and processing: Archaeological evidence from Goldthorpe, South Yorkshire. Environmental Archaeology 22(3): 233 – 246. Sjögren K-G., Ahlstörm T., Blank M., Price T. Douglas, Frei Karin Margarita, Hollund Hege Ingjerd. Early Neolithic Human Bog Finds from Falbygden, Western Sweden: New Isotopic, Osteological and Histological Investigations. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 19. Skoglund P. 1999. Diet, cooking and cosmology. Interpreting the evidence from Bronze Age plant macrofossils. Current Swedish Archaeology 7: 149 – 160. Tacitus. 2016. Germanina: författade år 98 e. Kr. [Ny] bearb. utg.] Göteborg: Mimer. Torfing T. 2017. Udgravningsberetning. SJM 380–2 Cobrakablet – Krogsgård Mark II, Ribe AMT, Skast Herred, Tjæreborg Sogn, 190513–123, FF: 226289. Report/ Sydvestjyske Museer. Turner R. 1999. Bog Body from Clongownagh, Baronstown West, County Kildare, Ireland. In: J.B. Coles/J. Coles/M.S. Jørgensen (eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Archaeology. WARP Occasional paper 12 (Exeter 1999), 227 – 234. Vanhanen S. 2010. Analysis of carbonized plant remains from an Early Germanic Iron Age (Ældre germansk jernalder) cremation burial. Report Afdeling for Konservering og Naturvidenskab Moesgård Museum. Nr. 4. Vanhanen S., Mikkanen T. 2013. New radiocarbon dates for a medieval oven with botanical remains from the hamlet of Gubbacka, Vantaa, southern Finland. SKAS: 1 – 2. Viklund K. 1998. Cereals, weeds and crop processing in Iron Age Sweden: methodological and interpretive aspects of archaeobotanical evidence. Diss. Umeå: Umeå Universitet, 1998. Viklund K. 2011. Flax in Sweden: the archaeobotanical, archaeological and historical evidence. Vegetation history & Archaeobotany 20: 509 – 515. Viklund K. 2011b. Para, Raä 8, Sånga sn, Ångermanland. Miljöarkeologisk undersökning av en folkvandringstida gravhög. Report Miljöarkeologiska laboratoriet 010. Wilson A. S., Taylor T., Ceruti M. C., Chavez J. A., Vaughan Grimes R., Meier-Augustein W., Cartmell L., Stern B., Richards M. P., Worobey M., Barnes I., Gilbert M. T. 2007. Stable isotope and DNA evidence for ritual sequences in Inca child sacrifice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 No. 42, 16456 – 16461.

Zachrisson Torun. 2014. Rotary querns and bread – A social history of Iron Age Sweden. Stavanger. AmS-Skrifter 24: 181 – 191.

Appendix

Meadow &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant Gatheredplants Gatheredplants Gatheredplants Gatheredplants Gatheredplants Gatheredplants &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture &Oil, Fiber Horticulture plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated plants Cultivated Ecocodes Meadow &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant &Meadow Grassplant Phleum sp. Phleum lanceolata Plantago Matricariainodora sp. Luzula campestris Luzula corniculatus Lotus catharticum Linum album cf. Galium verum cf. Galium odoratum Galium aparine/spurium Galium sp. Galium verum Galium vulgaris Filipendula deltoides Dianthus tectorum Crepis capillaris Crepis Arvense Cerastiumcf. Cerastiumcaespitosum Campanulaglomerata elatius Arrhenatherumssp elatius bulbosus Arrhenatherumssp elatius caninum Agypyron millefolium Achillea idaeus/caesius Rubus idaeus Rubus sp. Juniperus communis Juniperus Fragariavesca fragment) avellana(shell Corylus carota Daucus Brassicacampestris graveolens Anthum cf together Camelinasativa, fused Camelinasativa, separate seeds Camelinasativa usitatissimum Linum Cerealiaglume Cerealia Cerealiaindet cf. base glume sp. Triticum base glume dicoccum Triticum sp. Triticum Triticum dicoccum Triticum dicoccum/spelta Triticum spelta Triticum Triticum aestivum Triticum cerealefragmentsrachis Secale cf. cereale Secale Hordeum vulgare Hordeum vulgare Hordeum base) (glume vulgaresp. Hordeum vulgaresp. Hordeum vulgare(sprouted) vulgarevar. Hordeum vulgarevulgarevar. Hordeum nudum vulgarevar. Hordeum base) (glume sp. Avena Avena Avena base) (glume sativa Avena cf. (spiklet) sp. Avena (sprouted) sp. Avena sp. Avena sativa Avena fatuaAvena Nr.) (CO/CG. ID structure Complete (CO.XX/CGXX) Oven/Grave Complete (O.SNR). nr. sample Oven Agename dating on Notes Age (ml) volume Analysed (L) volume Sampled Featuretype Feature-nr. Sample-nr. . Camelina sativa, fused together Camelinasativa, fused . Triticum sp. Triticum cereale Secale Avena cf. cf. cf. cf. cf. sativa floretsativa base sativa, grain glume and cf dicoccum aestivum Root . sp. . cf. cf . var. nudum nudum var. . varvulgare 1100BC-1AD lBA-lpRIA CO.2349 CO.2349 O.329 Oven 2349 290 285 329 62 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Karlslunde, Greve, Denmark 500BC-1AD O.34,O.1026 epRIA -lpRIA epRIA CO.125 CO.125 Oven 1650 126 134 361 111 194 125 40 15 56 69 10 34 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark 500BC-1AD epRIA -lpRIA epRIA CO.2743 CO.2743 O.1026 Oven 1500 2743 1026 52 16 68 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark 500BC-1AD epRIA -lpRIA epRIA CO.1030 CO.1030 O.1030 Oven 2747 1030 241 700 64 32 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark O.P9, O.P10, OX549 O.P10, O.P9, P9,P10, X549 500BC-1AD epRIA -lpRIA epRIA CO.A4343 CO.4343 13150 26108 Oven 4343 250 239 153 100 252 349 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Kildebjerg, Skanderborg, Denmark 216,217, 218 O.216,O.217, O.218 150BC-1AD Ceramic CO.184 CO.184 Oven lpRIA 104 313 184 72 23 16 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Cobra kablet, Esbjerg, Denmark 50BC-1AD CO.A1968 CO.A1968 A1968 Oven O.82 ERIA C-14 53 82 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 200BC-180 AD lpRIA -ERIA lpRIA CO.A1046 CO.A1046 Context A1046 Oven O.63 13 20 10 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 Tjæreborg, Esbjerg, Denmark 0BC-180 AD CO.A1460 CO.A1460 Context A1460 Oven O.78 ERIA 34 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1189,1190, 1191, 1512 O.1189,O.1190, O.1191, O.1512 200-550 AD LRIA -eGIA LRIA CO.12357 CO.12357 12357 Oven 134 32 11 50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 251-556 AD LRIA - eGIA -eGIA LRIA CO.348 CO.348 O.506 Oven 144 131 118 348 506 1/8 11 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Skovby Nygård, Skanderborg, Denmark 425-635 AD MiP -VEN MiP CO.POKS CO.POKS Oven 111 844 30 14 33 11 12 11 99 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Uppåkra, Staffanstorp, Sweden 800-1350 AD CO.17,190 CO.17,19 VIK -MP VIK O.17,19 35/80 17,19 Oven 231 550 29 89 10 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Harsnablund, Silkeborg, Denmark 645-685 AD CO.KS CO.KS Oven 154 511 VIK 18 10 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uppåkra, Staffanstorp, Sweden 13150 26115 Total 1425 1443 106 111 264 267 250 239 154 130 131 135 654 151 499 856 48 10 24 56 19 13 14 12 20 29 89 10 33 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 2 1 1 6 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 8 6 LRIA -eGIA LRIA 375-550 AD Gravemound CG.1063 CG.1063

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Para, Raä 8 Sånga, Ångermanland CG.43 PRIA 500BC Cremationgrave CG.43 11 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMS 654, Hellegård eGIA 400-550 AD Cremationgrave CG.231 CG.231 471 134 196 116 43 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ÅHM 5354, Postgården (4296/71) CG.A2:2 CG.A2:2 GIA 500-600 AD Cairn

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vendla's mound CG.15248 CG.15248 -VIK eGIA 400-800 AD Cremationgrave

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 HBV 274, Solar – Vejen Vestermark (FHM 4296/1323) CG.A1:1 CG.A1:1 lGIA 600-750 AD Cairn

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vendla's mound CG.A1:2 CG.A1:2 VIK 800AD Cairn

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vendla's mound Total 502 143 199 118 44 12 19 15 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 4 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 GrauballeMan 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Tollund Man Man Tollund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 Meadow & Grass plant Pimpinella saxifraga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Poaceae 0 112 8 530 1 32 382 144 6 7 0 37 4 11 1274 24 0 2 7 5 0 0 38 1 0 1 Meadow & Grass plant Potentilla erecta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Meadow & Grass plant Potentilla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant cf. Potentilla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Rumex acetosella 0 48 12 44 92 3 99 0 0 0 0 1 35 0 334 0 0 5 6 1 0 1 13 2 1 3 Meadow & Grass plant Rumex sp. 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant cf. Rumex acetosella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant cf. Rumex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Roseaceae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Rhinanthus minor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Rhinanthus cf. minor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Meadow & Grass plant Trifolium campestre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Meadow & Grass plant Trifolium dubium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Meadow & Grass plant Trifolium pratense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Trifolium repens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Trifolium repens/medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Trifolium sp. 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 17 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Vicia sepium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Vicia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant cf . Vicia/Lathyrus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant cf. Vicia cracca 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Juncus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow & Grass plant Ranunculus sp. 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Aphanes arvensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Arrhenatherum elatius ssp bulbosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Artiplex patula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Brassica sp. 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf . Brassica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Brassicaceae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Bromus mollis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Weeds & Ruderal plants Bromus sp. 0 70 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Brunella vulgaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants Caryophyllaceae 0 0 52 88 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 142 0 0 0 4 14 0 0 18 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Capsella bursa-pastoris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 Weeds & Ruderal plants Chenopodium album 0 1688 192 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2056 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 3 3 6 Weeds & Ruderal plants Chenopodium glaucum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Chenopodium glaucum/rubrum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Chenopodium cf . album 0 0 0 0 0 1085 171 109 3 0 3 289 0 86 1746 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Chenopodium sp. 0 15 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 54 59 0 5 0 26 1 1 92 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Chenopodioideae 0 0 0 0 0 73 75 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Echinochloa crus-galli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 Weeds & Ruderal plants Erodium cicutarium 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Erysium cherianthoides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants Fabaceae 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 18 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf . Fabaceae 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Fallopia convolvulus 0 45 0 0 2 36 1 4 0 0 0 13 6 2 109 2 0 1 0 9 0 1 13 3 3 6 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf . Fallopia convolvulus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Fumaria officinalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Galeopsos tetrahit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 Weeds & Ruderal plants Galeopsis sp. 0 1 0 0 0 20 2 0 0 2 0 0 13 0 38 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf . Galeopsis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Holcus lanatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Weeds & Ruderal plants Lamium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Lapsana communis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Leontodon autumnalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Lolium perenne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Weeds & Ruderal plants Lolium remotum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Weeds & Ruderal plants Lychnis viscaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Lychnis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Matricaria inodora 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Melilotus cf. albus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Melilotus cf. altissimus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Myosotis arvensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Neslia paniculata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Phleum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Persicaria maculosa 0 2 0 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 32 0 22 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 Weeds & Ruderal plants Persicaria lapathifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 Weeds & Ruderal plants Persicaria lapathifolia/maculosa 0 3047 608 1336 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 61 2 15 5090 0 0 334 0 283 0 0 617 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Persicaria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 3517 12 40 8 0 0 24 0 1 3602 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Persicaria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Plantago lanceolata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Poaceae 0 112 8 530 1 32 382 144 6 7 0 37 4 11 1274 24 0 2 7 5 0 0 38 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Poa nemoralis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Polygonum aviculare 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 6 41 0 0 1 0 1 1 44 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Polygonum oxyspermun/aviculare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf . Polygonum 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Polygonaceae 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Potentilla argentea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Potentilla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Potentilla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Ranunculus repens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants Ranunculus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Rumex crispus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants Rumex sp. 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Rumex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Roseaceae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Scleranthus annuus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Scleranthus annuus/perennis 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Scleranthus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Setaria viridis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Siegliengia decumbens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Solanum nigrum 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 114 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 2 0 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants Solanum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Sonchus asper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants Spergula arvensis 0 175 2016 388 61 741 6069 391 2108 3 0 2 0 0 11954 0 0 2979 0 2 0 0 2981 3 3 6 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Spergula arvensis 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Stellaria media 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 Weeds & Ruderal plants Stellaria graminea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Stellaria cf . media 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Stellaria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Stellaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Stellaria/Cerastium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Thlaspi arvense 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf. Thlaspi arvense 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants cf . Urtica dioica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Veronica agrestis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Veronica sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Veronica serpyllifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 Weeds & Ruderal plants Veronica cf. serpyllifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Viola arvensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 Weeds & Ruderal plants Viola arvensis/tricolor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Weeds & Ruderal plants Viola sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 Wetland plants cf. Centarium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 334 0 1 0 335 0 0 0 Wetland plants Cyperaceae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 22 50 0 0 191 25 0 0 0 216 0 0 0 Wetland plants Deschampsia caespitosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Wetland plants Mentha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wetland plants cf. Mentha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wetland plants Phragmites communis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Wetland plants Ranunculus acer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Wetland plants Ranunculus repens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 Wetland plants Ranunculus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wetland plants Carex leporina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Wetland plants Carex cf. Caryophyllea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Wetland plants Carex sp. 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 12 0 0 0 9 0 12 37 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 Wetland plants Carex sp. /Scirpus sp. 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 Wetland plants cf. Carex sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wetland plants Ranunculus sp. 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 Wetland plants Silene dioica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Wetland plants cf. Zannichellia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cf Fabaceae Dianthus deltoides Cyperaceae Chenopodioideae (fragment) Chenopodioideae Chenopodium sp. (fragment) Chenopodium sp. Chenopodium glaucum/rubrum Chenopodium glaucum Chenopodium Chenopodium Chenopodium album Cerastium Arvensecf. Centariumcf. Caryophyllaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris Bromus sp. cf Brassicaceae sp. (fragment)Brassica sp. Brassica Artiplex patula species Weed Veronica sp. Trifolium sp. Scleranthus sp. Scleranthus annuus/perennis cf. Potentilla sp. Poaceae (fragment) Poaceae Plantago lanceolata Myosotis arvensis Erodium cicutarium Arrhenatherum elatius ssp elatius Arrhenatherum elatius ssp bulbosus Ruderal species Rubus idaeus/caesius Rubus idaeus Juniperus sp. (fragmented) Juniperus sp. Juniperus communis Fragaria vesca Corylus avellana (shell fragment) Gathered plants Daucus carota Anthum graveolens cf Camelina sativa, fused together Camelina sativa, separate seeds Camelina sativa Linum usitatissimum (fragment) Linum usitatissimum fibre andOil, Horticulture Cerealia glume Cerealia Cerealia indet (frag.) Cerealia indet cf. Triticum sp. glume base Triticum dicoccum glume base Triticum sp. Triticum Triticum dicoccum Triticum dicoccum/spelta Triticum Triticum aestivum Secale cereale rachis fragments cf. Secale cereale (fragment) Secale cereale Hordeum Hordeum vulgare Hordeum vulgare Hordeum vulgare sp. glume base Hordeum vulgare sp. (fragment) Hordeum vulgare sp. Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare (sprouted) Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare (fragment) Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare Hordeum vulgare var. nudum(fragment) Hordeum vulgare var. nudum Avena sp. (glume base) Avena Avena Avena sativa (glume base) cf cf. Avena sp. "nåle" Avena sp. (sprouted) Avena sp. (fragment) Avena sp. Avena sativa Avena fatua Cultivated plants Ecocodes Complete Oven/Grave (CO.XX/CGXX) Oven sample nr. (O.SNR). Age name Notes on dating Age Analysed volume (ml) Sampled volume (L) Etape Feature type K-nr. Feature-nr. Sample-nr. cf cf Galeopsis sp. (fragment) Galeopsis sp. Filipendula vulgaris cf Fallopia convolvulus/Polygonum aviculare (fragment) Fallopia convolvulus (fragment) Fallopia convolvulus . . Avena sp. (fragment) . . Galeopsis sp. (fargment . Galeopsis sp. . Fallopia convolvulus . Fabaceae . Brassica . Camelina sativa, fused together Potentilla sp. Triticum sp. Secale cereale Avena cf. cf. cf. cf. cf. cf. sativa floret base sativa, grain and glume cf dicoccum aestivum Root . . sp. cf cf . . album (fragment) . album cf. cf. cf . . var. nudum var vulgare

Sites 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA CO.125 Oven O.33 375 125 114 165 15 70 15 26 18 33 5 4 1 5 1 1 1 6 8 2 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA CO.125 1688 1650 Oven O.34 112 844 176 125 12 64 17 56 85 68 10 34 44 64 40 8 4 4 4 4 1 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA CO.2743 O.1026 1500 Oven 2743 1026 192 156 16 52 12 16 68 10 4 8 8 8 4 3 4 8 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA CO.1030 O.1030 Oven 2747 1030 168 196 530 700 19 32 11 33 88 64 9 8 8 3 1 4 7 8 6 3 Bøgely, Skanderborg, Denmark 251 - 556 AD - 556 251 LRIA - eGIA CO.348 O.506 Oven 349 131 117 348 506 1/8 28 11 36 3 1 1 1 5 4 1 2 Skovby Nygård, Skanderborg, Denmark 239/0,5 ml (2928/6 ml) ml (2928/6 239/0,5 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA CO.4343 0,5 ml 0,5 ml 3,2 Oven 4343 O.P9 252 349 38 33 94 29 P9 1 2 1 5 8 1 Kildebjerg, Skanderborg, Denmark 37,5/50,5 4,2 ml (38,7 ml)ml4,2 (38,7 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA CO.4343 O.P10 Oven 4343 365 P10 10 34 25 1 2 Kildebjerg, Skanderborg, Denmark 500 BC - AD1 500 epRIA - lpRIA 870,2 ml 870,2 CO.4343 18,9 ml 18,9 O.X549 Oven 4343 X549 23,6 23,6 11 10 25 46 1 3 3 1 2 Kildebjerg, Skanderborg, Denmark 800 - 1350 AD - 1350 800 CO.17,19 VIK VIK - MP O.17,19 35/80 17,19 Oven 527 537 13 10 56 29 89 10 41 33 2 2 6 2 8 4 1 3 Harsnablund, Silkeborg, Denmark 1100 BC - AD1 1100 lBA - lpRIA CO.2349 O.329 Oven 2349 329 278 198 285 21 62 5 2 Karlslunde, Greve, Denmark 200 - 550 AD - 550 200 LRIA - eGIA CO.12357 O.1189 12357 Oven K253 1189 50 16 3 5 8 7 2 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 200 - 550 AD - 550 200 LRIA - eGIA CO.12357 O.1190 12357 Oven K253 1190 102 75 20 6 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 200 - 550 AD - 550 200 LRIA - eGIA CO.12357 O.1191 12357 Oven K253 1191 10 12 4 1 4 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 200 - 550 AD - 550 200 LRIA - eGIA CO.12357 O.1512 12357 Oven K253 1512 16 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 150 BC - AD1 150 Ceramic CO.184 O.216 Oven lpRIA 184 216 770 171 162 42 12 80 10 26 23 20 90 22 6 6 1 1 1 2 2 1 7 8 8 7 2 4 1 Cobra kablet, Esbjerg, Denmark 150 BC - AD1 150 Ceramic CO.184 O.217 Oven lpRIA 184 217 210 14 14 47 21 23 13 74 1 2 9 3 5 9 4 4 3 1 3 4 4 Cobra kablet, Esbjerg, Denmark 150 BC - AD1 150 Ceramic CO.184 O.218 Oven lpRIA 184 218 20 19 72 16 68 9 1 5 1 7 2 2 7 5 1 4 1 4 5 1 3 5 Cobra kablet, Esbjerg, Denmark 200 BC - 180 AD BC - 180 200 lpRIA - ERIA CO.A1046 Context A1046 Oven O.63 102 142 10 63 21 41 20 1 4 8 7 8 1 2 9 1 1 3 Tjæreborg, Esbjerg, Denmark 0 BC - 180 AD BC - 0 180 CO.A1460 Context A1460 Oven O.78 ERIA 34 78 1 1 3 2 6 1 2 Tjæreborg, Esbjerg, Denmark 50 BC - AD1 50 CO.A1968 A1968 Oven O.82 C-14 ERIA 162 378 74 27 14 12 53 82 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 Tjæreborg, Esbjerg, Denmark 425 - 635 AD - 635 425 MiP MiP - VEN CO.POKS Oven 289 844 13 27 33 11 12 11 99 4 1 4 2 2 8 1 7 7 2 Uppåkra, Staffanstorp, Sweden 645 - 685 AD - 685 645 CO.KS Oven 154 511 VIK 22 86 10 52 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 2 Uppåkra, Staffanstorp, Sweden 400 - 550 AD - 550 400 CG.231 G.231 Grave A318 eGIA 191 471 134 196 116 220 231 43 18 12 1 1 5 1 1 5 2 Postgården, Aalborg, Denmark 400 - 800 AD - 800 400 CG.15248 eGIA - VIK G.1472 15248 Grave 1472 500

1 4 9 4 2 7 1 7 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 400 - 800 AD - 800 400 CG.15248 eGIA - VIK G.1475 15248 Grave 1475 490 13 1 3 1 7 5 3 4 1 1 9 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 400 - 800 AD - 800 400 CG.15248 eGIA - VIK G.1477 15248 Grave 1477 760 12 5 9 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 4 1 Vejen Vestermark, Vejen, Denmark 500 BC 500 CG.43 Grave G.43 eGIA 11 12 15 43 1 Hellegård, Skive, Denmark 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 10_0063:0001 G.106301 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave

Para, Ångermanland, Sweden 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 10_0063:0002 G.106302 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave 57 2 3 1 Para, Ångermanland, Sweden 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 @277 10_0063:0003 G.106303 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave

1 3 2 1 Para, Ångermanland, Sweden 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 10_0063:0004 G.106304 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave

1 Para, Ångermanland, Sweden 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 10_0063:0005 G.106305 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave

1 1 2 Para, Ångermanland, Sweden 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 10_0063:0006 G.106306 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave

Para, Ångermanland, Sweden 375 - 550 AD - 550 375 10_0063:0007 G.106307 LRIA - MP CG.1063 Grave

Para, Ångermanland, Sweden CG.A2:2 GIA AD - 600 500 Cairn 344 25 19 3 2 2 4 1 1 4 1 8 1 3 1 1 9 2 Vendla's mound CG.A1:1 lGIA AD - 750 600 Cairn

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 Vendla's mound CG.A1:2 VIK AD 800 Cairn

1 1 1 1 4 1 1 Vendla's mound Galium sp. 1 241 14 8 1 Galium aparine/spurium 30 18 Galium odoratum 3 Galium verum 1 Galium cf. verum 1 1 1 Galium cf. album 1 Lamium sp. 1 Linum catharticum 3 Lotus corniculatus 1 Lychnis viscaria 12 1 Lychnis sp. 3 Luzula sp. 111 2 Melilotus cf. albus 2 Mentha sp. 1 cf. Mentha sp. 3 Neslia paniculata 1 Persicaria maculosa 2 5 1 5 5 32 22 Persicaria lapathifolia/maculosa 487 2560 608 1192 5 2 3 2 4 7 61 15 334 80 25 178 Persicaria lapathifolia/maculosa (fragment) 432 1 cf. Persicaria maculosa/lapathifolia 1 1 1 1 Persicaria sp. 1445 1111 676 30 8 11 24 Persicaria sp. (fragment) 621 188 50 31 4 cf. Persicaria sp. 3 3 Phleum sp. 1 Plantago lanceolata 1 Pimpinella saxifraga 1 Poaceae 37 11 2 4 1 21 7 Poaceae (fragment) 10 Polygonum aviculare 1 2 3 41 1 1 1 Polygonum oxyspermun/aviculare 2 Polygonum oxyspermun/aviculare (fragment) 1 cf . Polygonum 5 Polygonaceae 8 8 7 Rumex acetosella 24 24 12 44 92 35 2 1 98 1 5 1 6 1 Rumex acetosella (fragment) 4 Rumex sp. 4 3 6 8 3 cf. Rumex acetosella 1 cf. Rumex sp. 1 Roseaceae 1 Rhinanthus minor 2 Solanum nigrum 112 1 1 2 7 5 Solanum sp. 1 Spergula arvensis 15 160 2016 388 6 33 22 1 2 213 330 185 373 2039 5759 2 2979 1 1 Spergula arvensis (fragment) 6 32 5 56 207 1012 cf. Spergula arvensis 1 9 2 cf . Spergula arvensis (fragment) 1 Stellaria media 1 8 5 Stellaria cf . media 1 Stellaria graminea 1 2 Stellaria sp. 2 cf. Stellaria 1 Stellaria/Cerastium Thlaspi arvense 5 5 19 2 cf. Thlaspi arvense 1 1 Trifolium pratense 18 Trifolium repens 1 5 Trifolium repens/medium 1 Trifolium sp. 3 5 4 cf . Urtica dioica 1 Veronica agrestis 2 Veronica serpyllifolia 3 Veronica cf. serpyllifolia 11 1 Veronica sp. 1 Vicia sepium 1 Vicia sp. 1 10 4 2 cf . Vicia/Lathyrus sp. 1 cf. Vicia cracca 2 Viola arvensis/tricolor 2 Viola sp. 1 1 1

Wetland plants Carex sp. 1 2 12 1 9 12 24 Carex cf. Caryophyllea 22 Carex sp. (fragment) 1 Carex sp. /Scirpus sp. 92 3 1 cf. Carex sp. 1 1 Juncus sp. 1 Ranunculus repens 1 Ranunculus sp. 28 4 4 1 Silene dioica 2 1 cf. Zannichellia 1

Tree species Alnus sp. 1 1 1 Alnus sp. (fragmented) 1 1 1 Betula sp. 1 1 1 1 1 Betula sp. (fragmented) 1 1 1 1 1 Picea sp. 1 Picea sp. (fragmented) 1 Picea sp. (Needle) 1 1 Pinus sp. 1 1 Pinus sp. (fragmented) 1 1 Pinus sp. (Needle) 1 1 Populus sp. Populus sp. (fragmented)

Indet 106 672 572 754 3 57 5 10 7 18 1 11 38 24 5 1 18 20 35 31 104 2 40 Indet (fragment) 2311 570 644 376 96 2766

Organic slag 7 2180 768 46 2 15 2 4 9 6 Sand slag 497 4 1 Straw 44 8 Flower bud 4 Calluna vulgaris (staws) 412f. 60f. (4455 f.) 89 60 47 97 64 179 Calluna vulgaris (roots) 17 (85) cf . Calluna vulgaris (roots) 14

Charcoal (ml) 55 Charcoal (X-XXXXX) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXXXX XXXXX X XX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XX XX XX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Notes Some seeds smaller than avarage Slag taken from >2 mm fraction Slag taken from >2 mm fraction Organic slag, small bonefragment 2 burnt bone fragments