Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia Animals in burial contexts An investigation of Norse rituals and human-animal relationships during the Vendel Period and Viking Age in Uppland, Sweden Hannah Strehlau Master’s thesis 45 ects in Archaeology Springterm 2018 Supervisor: Anders Kaliff Co-supervisor: John Ljungkvist Campus Uppsala Abstract Strehlau, H. (2018) Animals in burial contexts: an investigation of Norse rituals and human- animal relationships during the Vendel Period and Viking Age in Uppland, Sweden. The deposition of animals in graves was an essential aspect of burial practice in Scandinavia during the Vendel Period and Viking Age (550–1050 AD). While this rite occurs in many different regions, it is most clearly observed in the boat-graves from the famous cemeteries in Swedish Uppland, such as Vendel and Valsgärde, as well as in a number of high-status cremation graves. Former studies have tended to interpret faunal remains from burial contexts as food offerings, diplomatic gifts or simply as sacrifices. These explanations place an emphasis on the importance of the human dead and imply that grave assemblages mainly served to accompany the deceased as a provision for the afterlife, or to illustrate power, status and identity among the living. The master’s thesis presented here, comprises an analysis of animal depositions from both cremation and inhumation burials in Uppland. By applying the theory of agency, this study focuses on grave assemblages and human-animal relationships as a means of understanding burial practices. Instead of only paying attention to the type of bones and the animal species, it is equally important to consider the condition of the bones, their placement inside the grave and the placement of artefacts ascribed to certain animals in relation to the human dead. This is not only essential to decoding human-animal relationships as evident in burial practices, but also to understanding the many different processes that culminated in the deposition of animal bones in graves. Keywords: human-animal relationships, burial ritual, Scandinavia, Vendel Period, Viking Age Master’s thesis in archaeology 45 ects. Supervisor: Anders Kaliff; co-supervisor: John Ljungkvist. Submitted and approved 2018-06-27. © Hannah Strehlau Departement of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden. Preface Both funerary rituals and human-animal relationships are research fields that are not confined to archaeology, but are discussed in different academic disciplines of the humanities, the social sciences and in osteology. As a student of archaeology, however, I believe that my personal interest in both fields started to emerge with one specific incident: During the summer of 2013, I participated in a rescue excavation in south-western Germany, documenting settlement structures of the Linear Pottery Culture, the Urnfield Culture and the Hallstatt- and Latène Periods. Unexpectedly, a grave appeared among the settlement remains. It was the very first prehistoric grave that I took part in excavating and that I had seen in general. While previous fieldwork had consisted of sheer enthusiasm for every single piece of rounded ceramic sherds in fingernail-size, this discovery brought my archaeological experience to a whole new level and, moreover, stood in contradiction to all my expectations. We uncovered the fairly well-preserved skeleton of an adult deceased but, when approaching the region around the skull, further bone material emerged from the soil. In the end, it was revealed that the head of the deceased had been bedded on a dog’s body. This was probably the starting point for my interest in funerary rituals and human-animal relationships as an archaeological concern, further motivated by a personal dispute with myself, marked by a periodic urge to vegetarianism and the ongoing search for an understanding of our relations to different animals today and in prehistoric times. Furthermore, as I know now, it was also the probably most fruitful and inspiring birthday present that I ever got. As an archaeology student engaging with osteological affairs, it took time and effort to become acquainted with the material and methods of this discipline. Therefore, I was dependent on the help by Swedish osteologists and osteology students. Hence, my thanks go to osteologist Emma Sjöling, who gave good advice and pointed out with what kind of thinking osteologists approach their research question and which aspects need to be taken into consideration. Further thanks go to my study colleagues Chris for stimulating conversations and quick osteological help when it was needed, as well as to Anna who gave important comments on my text. In this context, I also need to thank Jhonny Therus for useful hints on suitable burial grounds in Uppland, Anneli Ekblom for a never-ending methodology class and other members of the department who directly or indirectly contributed to the outcome of this study. I thank my parents who were a big support and never gave up believing that I would make my way coming to Sweden and completing my master studies here. I also want to thank my roommate, just for being at home, listening to my problems and especially for providing me with food. Last but not least, my biggest thanks go to my supervisors Anders Kaliff and John Ljungkvist, who turned out to be a perfect combination of teachers, engaging with issues of pre- Christian religion on the one side and with the concrete material on the other. In addition, it shall be mentioned that material footage and imagery was kindly provided by the Viking Phenomen Project. Innehåll 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Starting point ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.2. Purpose and aims ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Theoretical aspects .................................................................................................................... 9 1.4. Method and Material ............................................................................................................... 11 2. Previous Research ........................................................................................................................... 14 3. The Database ................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1. Explanation of the database ................................................................................................... 16 3.1.1. Requirements and preconditions ........................................................................................... 16 3.1.2. Explanation of tables and their information ......................................................................... 16 3.2. Interpretive handling of the grave assemblages .................................................................... 17 3.2.1. Dating ................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2. Status determination ............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.3. Standardization of gender- and sex determination................................................................ 18 3.2.4. Standardization of age determination ................................................................................... 19 3.2.5. Burial types ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.6. Degree of disturbance ........................................................................................................... 20 3.2.7. The question of cremation on-site ........................................................................................ 21 3.3. Source-critical problems ............................................................................................................. 22 3.3.1. Taphonomy and other source-critical aspects ....................................................................... 22 3.3.2. Critical notes concerning osteology reports .......................................................................... 23 4. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 25 4.1. Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................. 25 4.1.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2. Changing numbers of animals in graves ............................................................................... 25 4.1.3. Frequency of species and animal groups .............................................................................. 30 4.1.4. Complete- or incomplete depositions? ................................................................................. 35 4.1.5. Body part frequency and bone condition .............................................................................. 41 4.2. Spatial analysis ...........................................................................................................................