”In 100 meters turn left by the runestone” -A least cost path and spatial statistics study, of the Scanian runestones; in relation to Viking Age infrastructure. @ Lantmäteriet Dnr: i2012/927 Department of Archaeology and Ancient History Masters thesis in Archaeology (ARKM21, spring 2013) Author: Gabriel B. N. Norburg Supervisor: Fredrik Ekengren Assistant Supervisor: Nicolò Dell’Unto Examiner: Kristina Jennbert 1 A son is better, though late he be born, And his father to death have fared; Memory-stones seldom stand by the road, save when kinsman honors his kin. —Hávamál 1:72 Abstract This thesis concerns the patterns of organization visible within the context that is the Scanian runestones in relation to roads, organized clustering and energy-conservativity. As well as the digital methods increasingly used to analyze such patterns. Using FMIS databases and LIDAR-elevation data it analyses the long, spread out lines of runestones visible in the landscape through GIS spatial- statistics analysis, as well as least cost path analysis, and simultaneously evaluates the combination of the runestones and said tools, as a method for studying Viking Age infrastructure. The statistical part of the analysis includes all of the Scanian runestones, and compares the organization grade (z-score and k-function) of the Scanian runestones to the organization grade of the Scanian milestones; the organization grade of the Gotland mile- and runestones are briefly discussed as a comparative material. The results of this analysis indicate a very high level of organized clustering within Scanian runestone context, one comparable to the level of organization we see among the Gotland Milestones. The least cost path analysis focuses in on two smaller portions of Scania; the area in- between Källstorp and Bjäresjö (which have a large number of surviving runestones), as well as an area north of Lund, around Lödde å (where runestone material is less dense and linear, and is also subject to greater influence from surrounding features). The output of this analysis showed that most of the runestones in these regions seem to have been organized in relation to one single path of higher energy efficiency. In turn most likely indicating the presence of a larger body of Viking Age infrastructure, that may have stretched across most of Scania’s south and west-coasts. Key Words: Runestone, Least Cost path, energy conservativity, Roads, Infrastructure, GIS, Average nearest Neighbor, Ripley’s K, Viking Age, Early medieval, Iron Age 2 A Special Thanks to: Fredrik Ekengren - For supervising my work, recommending me good literature, always challenging my arguments and not having been afraid of keeping my inner Darwinist in check. Nicolo Dell’unto - For acting as a supervisor in all things digital; For having taken time from his busy schedule to help me get started, help me devising my method, educating me further on aspects of LIDAR- data as well as the more theoretical aspects of digital archaeology. And also for introducing me to digital archaeology in the first place. Kristina Jennbert - For very useful input and for lending me her very rare English language copy of Moltke’s “Runes and their origin” Torbjörn Ahlström - For recommending the use of milestones as a comparative material in the statistical analysis; as well as introducing me to spatial statistics in the first place. 3 Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Why Vikings, Runestones and Roads? ......................................................................................... 6 1.2 The Runestones ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Tracking Roads – The aim of the thesis ........................................................................................ 8 1.3.1 Questions ................................................................................................................................ 11 2.0 Method and Theoretical Perspectives ........................................................................................... 12 2.1 Method and theory in Digital archaeology ................................................................................ 12 2.2 Analyzing Virtual Landscapes ..................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Statistics and milestones as a benchmark ................................................................................. 15 2.4 Least cost Path analysis .............................................................................................................. 17 2.5 Least cost path – A cognitive archaeological method with a Darwinian perspective ............... 18 3.0Material ........................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1 FMIS DATA .................................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 LIDAR & Orthographic Data ........................................................................................................ 22 3.3 Maps ........................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Primary sources .......................................................................................................................... 24 3.5 Method workflow ....................................................................................................................... 24 4.0 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.1 Gotland Data ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.1.2 Scania Data ......................................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Low cost path Analysis ............................................................................................................... 43 4.2.1 Material ............................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.2 Southern Case study ............................................................................................................ 47 4 4.2.3 Northern Case study ............................................................................................................ 52 5.0 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 55 5.1 Continued habitation and warrior aristocracy? The bump in the road by Sjörup… ................. 55 5.1.1 A mix of magnate clans and royal servants? ....................................................................... 57 5.1.2 The Landscape ..................................................................................................................... 59 5.2 The river, the Knytlinga clan, and the fork in the road… ........................................................... 61 5.2.1 Lund, the town that caused Vikings to walk up-hill ............................................................ 62 5.2.2 Lödde å - a major intersection? ........................................................................................... 65 5. 3 Trees, LIDAR, statistics and excavation records; an evaluation of the method… ..................... 68 6.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 73 8.0 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 75 Non Printed Sources ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.0 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................... 81 5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Why Vikings, Runestones and Roads? The Viking and Early Medieval periods have been on my mind as long as I can remember, growing up every stick was a broadsword, every path was ancient and every mound held an ancient warlord. I can trace my choice of studying the Vikings all the way back to age 10, when my father handed me his copies of the works of J.R.R Tolkien and Frans G. Bengtsson. It sparked an interest in Old Norse history above all else, and the very same year in history class for my first ever history paper, I choose the Vikings. In a way I have never swayed from that choice, to this day, when given a choice; my studies always return to the Norse. The choice of runestones and statistical analysis came to me around 2 years ago during studies in landscape