image/svg+xml
47
XI/1/2020
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to
the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses in Jutland and Funen
(Denmark)
Radoslaw Grabowski
a,b*
a
Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå , Sweden
b
BAAC Archaeology and Building History, Graaf van Solmsweg 103, 5222 BS ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
1. Background: archaeological understanding of the use
of space in late Iron Age houses in Denmark
Settlements from the 2
nd
to the 5
th
century AD in present
day Denmark are characterised by farmsteads with a main
longhouse which was adjoined by one or more smaller
buildings (outhouses). Regularly these farmsteads were
surrounded by fences, and in some cases the fences also
appear to have been covered by a roof. These so-called
saddle-
roof
enclosures would have been open to all sides except the
one with the fence.
The typical late Iron Age longhouse is understood to have
been a multifunctional building (Figure 1). Unfortunately,
much less is known about the internal ordering of longhouses
during the middle of the frst millennium AD, than those of
the preceding early Iron Age where many well-preserved
sites have provided ample evidence about indoor activities
(summary in Webley, 2008).
Longhouses from the 3
rd
to the 7
th
century AD varied in
length from approximately 15 to more than 60 metres but
were almost always between 5 and 6 metres wide. The houses
were mostly oriented east-west with two centrally located
entrances (facing north and south). Dwelling areas (
i.e.
spaces
for food preparation, eating, other household activities, and
probably also sleeping) are occasionally indicated by the
presence of hearths and artefacts associated with domestic
activities. They tend to be situated to the west of the central
entrances. Byres are occasionally indicated by the presence
of traces of animal stall partition walls. These stalls were
mostly situated to the east of the entrances. The function
of the small ancillary houses is in most cases unknown, but
Volume XI ● Issue 1/2020 ● Pages 47–62
*Corresponding author. E-mail: r.grabowski@baac.nl
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 9
th
March 2020
Accepted: 11
th
June 2020
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2020.1.4
Key words:
middle 1
st
millennium AD settlements
archaeobotany
carbonised plant macro remains
longhouses
use of settlement space
ABSTRACT
This paper uses the composition and spatial distribution of carbonised archaeobotanical material
from postholes to identify and delineate agrarian and household activities within settlements. The
paper presents the analyses of seven houses/farmsteads dating to the 3
rd
–6
th
century AD, which were
excavated on four separate sites: Flensted, Skovby Nygård and Gedved Vest in east-central Jutland, and
Odensevej on the island of Funen.
To infer settlement activities from the distributions of carbonised plant macro remains, the paper
defnes the various stages of plant processing and carbonisation circumstances. It also discusses
assumptions about plant processing sequences and the formation of charred plant assemblages that
were made during the analysis.
The results show that the distribution of charred plant macro-remains can assist in the identifcation and
delineation of spaces with diferent functions. The presented cases identify the locations of dwelling
spaces, spaces where processed crops were stored and/or used, and spaces where fne sieving of grain
was performed. The results also show a similarity between the analysed houses, which suggests the
existence of a regional tradition of ordering household space. These patterns also confrm assumptions
about mid-1
st
millennium houses previously made on the basis of other archaeological evidence.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
48
they are often assumed to have been used for agriculture or
crafts and are commonly termed “economy buildings” (DK:
økonomibygning
) (Hedeager and Kristiansen, 1988, p.142;
Hvass
et al.
, 1988; Ethelberg, 2003, p.226; Jensen, 2003,
p.214; Mikkelsen and Nørbach, 2003, p.23; Herschend,
2009, p.236).
From the earlier Scandinavian Iron Age (c. 500 BC–
AD 100) a signifcant number of houses with preserved
foor layers, pavements and artefact spreads have been
encountered over the last hundred years; especially in the
west of the country where a combination of less intensive
agriculture and aeolian movement of sand have acted as
factors for excellent preservation. Through these fnds,
detailed inferences about the use of domestic space have
been possible (see comprehensive summary in Webley,
2008). For the later Iron Age, the paucity of artefacts,
preserved foor layers, and architectural traces indicative of
function makes interpretation of the internal arrangement of
late Iron Age houses more difcult, especially in the many
cases where no hearths or animal stall walls are present. This
has, over the years, led to attempts at using various natural
scientifc approaches, such as soil phosphate mapping and
plant macrofossil analysis, to provide additional insights.
The use of these methods is still at a stage of evaluation
by the broader archaeological community. This makes the
dissemination of promising examples important.
2. Aims and organisation of the paper
The main aim of this paper is to illustrate the potential
contribution that archaeobotanical analysis of carbonised
plant macro remains can make to the understanding of
late Iron Age longhouses. Furthermore, the paper aims
to provide a broad outline of the key principles and
assumptions that underpin analysis of charred macrofossil
distributions in houses. This is done in the hope of making
the approach more accessible to colleagues outside of
archaeobotany, especially those who regularly excavate
settlements and are responsible for the collection of
samples.
The aims are pursued in three steps. Firstly, in the
theory section (Section 3), the formation, circulation and
preservation of carbonised botanical material is explored.
The focus lies on cereal crops and arable weeds since
these categories of plant material make up the majority of
all archaeobotanical fnds from late Iron Age settlements
(excluding charcoal). The method and material of the study
are presented in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. In Section 6,
the patterning in the botanical record from each case study is
presented and interpreted within the framework established
in Section 3. Lastly, in Section 7, the broader implications
of the results for understanding 3
rd
–6
th
century habitation are
discussed.
Figure 1.
Plan and hypothetical reconstruction drawing of a late Iron Age longhouse at Vorbasse in Jutland (after Hedeager and Kristiansen, 1988, p.139).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
49
3. Theory: the formation, circulation and preservation
of carbonised plant remains on settlements
3.1 The
chaîne opératoire
of plant processing
Botanical material can become preserved by carbonisation
if it is exposed to the right combination of heat (usually
250–500°C) and low-oxygen conditions (Miksicek, 1987)
.
Once carbonised, such material is no longer biologically
degradable but can still be damaged and fragmented through
mechanical action.
In archaeology, preserved plant remains are rarely
studied as individual fnds, but rather as
assemblages
sampled from natural or cultural deposits. While often
used for understanding cultural phenomena such as the use
of domestic space, and hence acting as (micro-) artefacts
of human behaviour, botanical assemblages have some
properties which make them diferent from other forms of
material culture. Assemblages of charred plant remains are
not
manufactured
in the same way as most artefacts but
are instead assembled (sorted, mixed, accumulated) due to
processes related to the procurement (harvest/gathering),
sorting, cleaning, storage, preparation, consumption and
discard of plant resources. Since these processes tend to
follow a specifc order they can be understood as botanical
chaînes opératoire
(operational sequences) of plant use
(Hillman, 1984; Jones, 1984; Viklund, 1998).
On Iron Age settlements in Scandinavia, cereals and
weeds make up the majority of all carbonised plant macro
remains (excluding charcoal). The operational sequences
of these plant categories are therefore the most relevant for
understanding the use of space.
From historical sources in Scandinavia, and ethnographic
documentation in regions where pre-industrial agriculture was
still practiced in the recent past, we know that the processing
of cereals usually required 30 or more separate steps (see
summary example in Figure 2) (Erixon, 1956; Brøndegaard,
1978; Hillman, 1984; Jones, 1984). This degree of detail is,
however, rarely traceable archaeologically, and practitioners
of Scandinavian archaeobotany tend to work with simplifed
sequences such as: 1) harvest, 2) threshing, 3) coarse and
fne cleaning, 4) storage, 5) consumption and 6) various
forms of discard (
e.g.
Engelmark, 1989; Henriksen and
Robinson, 1996; Viklund, 1998; Mikkelsen and Nørbach,
2003; Grabowski, 2013).
In general terms, it can be said that three main changes
will occur in the composition of cereal assemblages meant
for consumption during processing. Firstly, the ratio of
non-edible to edible parts of cereal plants will decrease as
non-edible parts are separated from the grain. An example
of this is the breaking of the ears with a threshing fail
and removal of the straw, glumes and rachises by sieving,
finging and winnowing. Secondly, the ratio of weed seeds
to grain will also decrease as weeds, which are unwanted
in both food and seed, will be sorted away with diferent
techniques. Because all sorting relies on size and/or weight,
weeds with weights and shapes similar to those of grain will
be the last to be removed. Thirdly, small and large cereal
grains may be sorted into batches of diferent size (Hillman,
1981; 1984; Viklund, 1998; Stevens, 2003; Fuller
et al.
,
2014). From historical records we know that grain was
sorted into categories from the very best, known as
prime
grain
, which was used for sowing, through mid-grain, which
was used as food, to the smallest, the so called
tail grain
,
which was regularly mixed with straw and chaf and given to
animals, but could also be consumed by people in lean years
(Erixon, 1956; Engelmark, 1989; Larsson, 2017).
Ethno-archaeological
middle-range
studies such as the
one by Jones (1990) provide real-life demonstrations of the
changes in botanical assemblages that occur over the course
of an operational sequence. Using ternary graphs, Jones has
been able to show that assemblages from diferent processing
stages have distinct ratios of grain to weeds to rachises
(Figure 3a). Such modern data is useful for interpreting
archaeobotanical assemblages, but as Jones rightly points out,
we must be aware of possible diferences in the handling of
diferent crop species (her study concerned barley and naked
wheat). Furthermore, the precise composition of botanical
assemblages at specifc points during processing may vary
Figure 2.
A schematic summary of historical (late 19
th
/early 20
th
century)
hulled barley processing in Sweden (after Engelmark, 1989, p.183).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
50
from one community to another, or even between individual
farmers (Jones and Halstead, 1995) due to diferences in
agricultural habits and diferent concepts of what the desired
product is supposed to be. For these reasons, some studies
use a simplifed categorisation of the botanical record into
grain-rich, weed-rich and chaf-rich assemblages when
comparing samples, features, houses and sites (Jones, 1985;
Veen van der and Jones, 2006; Figure 3b).
Because the activities which create diferently-composed
archaeobotanical assemblages tend to be performed in
diferent parts of a settlement, the inference of the operational
stages of botanical assemblages can ofer clues about the
functions of spaces. Identifcation of cleaned grain can, for
example, help delineate storage areas; concentrations of
chaf and rachises can defne threshing areas,
etc.
(
e.g.
Maier
and Harwath, 2011; VanDerwarker
et al.
, 2015).
3.2. The carbonisation event and deposition of
carbonised plant macro remains in postholes
A precondition for inferring the operational context of
an assemblage is defning the nature of the carbonisation
event, and how the material may have become deposited in
posthole flls. Often a posthole will contain more than one
fll (Engelmark, 1985). The
primary fll
was intentionally
packed around the post to keep it in place. Presumably it
consists mainly of the topsoil and subsoil that was dug out
in preparation for the raising of the post. The primary fll
tends to be either devoid of carbonised plant material or, in
the case of multi-phased settlements, it may contain material
from preceding habitation phases. Sampling of the primary
fll is thus not relevant for studying the structure to which
the posthole belongs. The
secondary flls
are the deposits
which made their way into a posthole during or after use.
Figure 3.
Ternary graphs as a tool for
categorising charred archaeobotanical
assemblages: a) the real-life compositions of
botanical assemblages from diferent stages
of crop processing from 20th century Greece
(after Jones, 1990); b) an often-used general
categorisation into grain-rich, weed-rich,
chaf-rich and mixed assemblages (after
Veen van der and Jones, 2006); and c) the
categorisation used in this study, with the
cut-of points for non-mixed categories set
stricter than in b.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
51
This inflling will have begun already during the use of the
house as the posts decomposed and soil and other matter
from the surrounding foor layers fell in. After a house was
abandoned, disassembled or destroyed, for example by a fre,
more material may have made its way into the posthole. Any
resulting hollows presumably quickly flled up with matter
from the immediate proximity of the post.
Concentrations of carbonised material per litre of
(secondary) posthole fll can be an indicator for whether a
house is burnt or unburnt but need to be evaluated carefully
as they may be misleading. This is partly due to chance. We
must not forget that archaeological postholes are merely the
lowermost “stumps” of the original features. The parts of the
postholes closest to the original foor surface have in most
cases been destroyed by biological activity in the topsoil
and/or hundreds of years of land use. It is often difcult to
establish to what extent these remnants represent the original
situation.
Carbonisation itself can occur at many steps during
plant processing, but some stages will probably be
over-represented since they involved the use of fre or were
performed near fres (Hillman, 1981; 1984; Engelmark,
1989; Viklund, 1998). Carbonisation, moreover, may have
occurred on a small scale during everyday activities or be
due to accidents where large volumes of material became
carbonised all at once (Hillman, 1981; 1984; Engelmark,
1989; Viklund, 1998). In unburnt houses, we can theorise
that deposition of charred material should mainly have
occurred around freplaces or in refuse collection areas.
The resulting archaeobotanical assemblages should in
these cases be seen as ’palimpsests’ of many individual
actions over longer periods of time. If, on the other hand,
a house burned down, carbonisation would have become
possible anywhere in the house and plants which normally
run little risk of being exposed to heat could have become
preserved. The resulting archaeobotanical assemblages from
such cases will refect a shorter time span in the history of a
building, showing something akin to a “photograph” of what
was in the house at the time of the fre. A signal from the
preceding sporadic “everyday” carbonisations will in these
cases still be embedded in the assemblage, but studies in
southern Scandinavia indicate that house-fre carbonisations
outnumber everyday charring to such an extent as to make
the latter invisible (Henriksen and Robinson, 1996; Viklund,
1998; Gustafsson, 2000; Henriksen, 2003; Moltsen, 2011;
Grabowski and Linderholm, 2014).
Concretely, the diference between burnt and unburnt houses
should be visible both as diferences in the concentrations of
burnt material (grains, seeds, charcoal) per litre of sampled
soil, as well as diferences in distribution (Figure 4). Unburnt
Figure 4.
Schematic representation of the
expected pattern of deposition of carbonised
plant material in burnt and unburnt houses.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
52
houses should show an uneven distribution with “peaks” in
some areas, while in burnt houses, where all plants (including
the house structure) could carbonise, charred material should
be present in every part of the house.
Some fnal considerations to take into account are that
houses may have been only partially afected by fre, or that
they may have been burnt down intentionally for functional
(clearance) or symbolic (abandonment ritual) reasons.
In both cases, they may have been emptied or modifed
beforehand.
4. Material and method
4.1. The analysed house remains
A total of twelve structures have been analysed, distributed
over seven farmsteads on four sites in east-central Jutland
and Funen. A summary of the houses, their dating and
references to the excavation reports is provided in Table
1. Common to all cases, and underpinning their relevance
for this study, was that the houses were comprehensively
sampled, with material gathered from
all
segments of each
house (see Figures 6–9).
House K5 at Flensted, K1 at Skovby Nygård and A11312
at Geved Vest are all single phased constructions with no
overlap of other habitation phases. The southern end of
house A11320 at Gedved Vest was overlapped by a smaller
structure, but this structure has, by means of
14
C-analysis,
been established as younger. Its postholes did not intersect
those of A11320. The risk of contamination is considered
as negligible. All of the mentioned houses are assumed
to have been the main longhouse within their respective
farmstead except for K1 from Skovby Nygård. This house
was situated just outside a large farmstead enclosed by a
saddle-roof fence. It seems, however, to have been too large
for an ancillary “shed”. Furthermore, a well-preserved,
high-quality, imitation of a Frankish drinking vessel was
found in the house, possibly indicating a domestic or ritual
setting.
The most complex site is Odensevej (Figure 9), where
samples derive from both longhouses and outbuildings. The
site also contains three distinct phases (phase 2, 3 and 4;
phase 1 was situated outside the area of this study) of which
the latter two were enclosed by saddle-roofed enclosures.
The enclosure was unfortunately not sampled. The structures
of the later phases were constructed over those of the earlier
ones but there is only one instance where two postholes
intersect.
4.2. Sample preparation and determination of botanical
material
All botanical material was extracted by fotation and
collected with <0.25 mm sieves or nets. The samples were
inspected under stereo microscope and the botanical material
was determined with the help of reference literature and
modern comparative collections.
Table 1.
Summary of the analysed houses and the feld interpretation about whether the houses are burnt or unburnt. All radiocarbon dates are shown as
cal. 2σ.
HouseDate
Presumed burnt/
unburnt before
analysis
Number of
samples (analysed
volume)
Original excavation and
archaeobotanical report/
publication
Flensted House K5
14
C: AD 240–381
14
C: AD 260–416
14
C: AD 260–421
Unburnt? No traces of
fre
18 (70 litres)
(Grabowski, 2015a; Schifter
Bagge, 2016)
Skovby Nygård House K1
14
C: AD 336–533
14
C: AD 405–575
14
C: AD 382–536
Not interpreted6 (25 litres)
(Jensen, 2013; Grabowski,
2015b)
Gedved Vest House A11312
14
C: AD 417–570
14
C: AD 406–556
14
C: AD 412–545
Not interpreted13 (66.5 litres)
(Hansen, 2012; Grabowski,
2013; 2014a)
Gedved Vest House A11320
14
C: AD 352–537
14
C: AD 411–543
14
C: AD 352–537
Not interpreted7 (31 litres)
(Hansen, 2012; Grabowski,
2013; 2014a)
Odensevej phase 2 (longhouse
house K1 and ancillary
building K12)
14
C: AD 135–340
Limited traces of fre,
unknown whether from
house fre or use of
hearth(s)
15 (73 litres)
(Christensen and Hansen, 2008;
Grabowski, 2009; 2014b)
Odensevej phase 3 (longhouse
K2 and ancillary buildings K4
and K6)
Stratigraphy: later
than phase 2, earlier
than phase 4
Unburnt, no traces of
fre
18 (81.5 litres)
(Christensen and Hansen, 2008;
Grabowski, 2009; 2014b)
Odensevej phase 4 (longhouse
K3 and ancillary buildings K5
and K7)
14
C: AD 411–543
14
C: AD 433–604
Clear traces of fre
26 (110 litres)
(Christensen and Hansen, 2008;
Grabowski, 2009; 2014b)
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
53
4.3. Data processing
The categorisation of houses as burnt or unburnt and the
inference of the probable stage of operation of the botanical
material, following the concepts outlined in Section 3, has
been pursued with the following approach:
•
Comparison of the archaeobotanical results to relevant
observations made during excavation/post-excavation
(summarised in Table 1).
•
Comparison of the concentrations of carbonised
material in the posthole flls. Because charcoal in
burnt houses can also originate from the structure
itself, charcoal and grains/seeds/chaf are calculated
separately (Table 2).
•
Comparison of the ratios of cereal grain to weeds to
chaf with the help of ternary graphs (Figure 5). The
criteria for categorising the assemblages have been set
somewhat stricter than in, for example, van der Veen
and Jones (2006). Assemblages are categorised as
grain-rich, weed-rich or chaf-rich if they contain 70%
or more of a single crop plant component (Figure 3c).
•
Visualisation of the distribution of carbonised material
in space, overlain on house plans. One plan shows the
distribution and concentrations of charcoal, the other
the distribution and concentrations of seeds/fruits/
grain (Figures 6–9). On the second plan, the symbols
are colour coded with red for grain-rich, green for
weed-rich, yellow for chaf-rich, and grey for mixed
assemblages,
i.e.
the same colour codes as in Figures
3c and 5.
•
Where enough intact/non-deformed grain was present
in both grain-rich and weed-rich assemblages,
comparison of the grain sizes from diferent presumed
processing stages (Figure 10). The dimensions of the
grains were measured from calibrated photographs
with the ImageJ software (Anon. n.d.).
5. Results and interpretation of spatial patterns
5.1. General composition of the botanical material from
the houses
The carbonised material in the analysed houses consists
mainly of grain and arable weeds/ruderals. The most
numerous crop is hulled barley (
Hordeum vulgare
s.l. var.
vulgare
). Rye (
Secale cereale
) is also present and may
have been either intentionally grown or present as a weed
(Mikkelsen and Nørbach, 2003; Robinson
et al.
, 2009;
Grabowski, 2014b). At Odensevej, there is also a smaller
presence of bread wheat (
Triticum aestivum
subsp.
vulgare
).
Oat is also present, but the sporadic fnds are assumed to
derive from wild oat (
Avena fatua
). The weeds are dominated
by nitrophilous annuals with goosefoot (
Chenopodium
album
) and pale persicaria/redshank (
Persicaria lapathifolia/
maculosa
) accounting for most of the fnds. It is assumed
that these plants were growing in the felds with the grain and
were unintentionally brought in with the harvests.
5.2. One unburnt and one burnt house at the nearby
sites of Flensted and Skovby Nygård
Houses K5 from Flensted and K1 from Skovby Nygård
provide the most easily interpretable records in relation to the
theory outlined above. They also appear to be each other’s
opposites in terms of formation of the archaeobotanical record.
Table 2 and the ternary graph (Figure 5) show house K5 to
have the lowest concentrations of both charcoal and grains/
seeds. Most of the samples fall in the category “grain-rich”,
Table 2.
Minimum, mean and maximum concentrations of charcoal and other plant macro-remains (mainly grain and seeds/fruits) in the analysed houses.
MACRO REMAINS (n/l)CHARCOAL (ml/l)
minavgmaxminavgmax
Flensted, K5
01.760.2412.5
Skovby Nygård, K1
159.9194.9514.428
Gedved Vest, A11312
016.950.62.214.940.2
Gedved Vest, A11320
222100.91523.640
Odensevej, phase 2
longhouse
115.547.81.84.510
outbuildings
00.20.30.212.4
Odensevej, phase 3
longhouse
0.211.576.30.11.96.5
outbuilding N
0.20.82.27.411.520
outbuilding S
00.621.63.25
Odensevej, phase 4
longhouse
0150.4801.63.643.8160
outbuilding N
07.133.40.83.67.6
outbuilding S
00.10.20.24.110
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
54
Figure 5.
Ternary graphs showing the ratios
of grain to weeds to chaf as well as the total
concentration of material (size of circle) in
the samples from the analysed houses. The
circles showing the concentrations are to
scale for all graphs except Odensevej, phase
4, where the size has been reduced to ft
inside the Figure. For summary data of the
concentrations of carbonised material see
Table 2.
but it is important to emphasise that we are dealing with only
handfuls of kernels per sample. Interestingly, both the grains/
seeds and the charcoal show a clear spatial trend (Figure 6),
with higher concentrations around the entrances (marked
with arrows on the plan) and in the western half of the
house. Hardly any material is present in the postholes of the
eastern third of the house. Seen within the framework of the
theory outlined in Section 3, this indicates an unburnt house,
probably with the hearth situated to the west of the entrances.
The fact that material was also found in the entrance area
may indicate that this was the route along which burnt refuse
was transported (swept?) out of the house. House K1 from
Skovby Nygård, in contrast, shows charcoal concentrations
on average four times that of K5 and the second highest
concentrations of macro remains of all the analysed houses.
The ternary graph (Figure 5) shows that the botanical
material is mainly present in two postholes and consists
of one grain-rich and one weed-rich assemblage, while the
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
55
spatial distribution map (Figure 7) shows that the weeds and
grain are present in the opposite ends of the house, with the
grain in the west and the weeds in the east. It is unlikely
for such large amounts of grain or weed seeds to carbonise
from everyday activities. This, in combination with the high
concentrations of charred material indicates that this house
burnt down.
5.3. Two similar houses at Gedved Vest
Houses A11312 and A11320 from the site of Gedved Vest
were situated close to each other. The
14
C-data makes
possible that they were contemporaneous, but they may
also represent two habitation phases on the same spot. No
hypothesis of whether the houses were burnt or unburnt was
proposed before the analysis. The concentrations of charcoal
in both houses are comparable to K1 from Skovby Nygård,
while the amounts of grain and weed seeds are lower, but
still distinctly higher than at Flensted. The ternary graphs
(Figure 5) for these houses show similar patterns where the
largest assemblages in each house are, just like at Skovby
Nygård, to be found opposite to each other in the categories
grain-rich and weed-rich assemblages, while the smaller
assemblages are mixed. Another striking similarity is the
spatial distribution of the material (Figure 8). In both houses,
the grain-rich assemblages are situated in the NE-end, while
weeds are concentrated in the centre of the house. This
pattern seems clearer in House A11320, but this is partly due
to the cut-of point of the categorisation as the mixed (grey)
assemblages in the north-east of A11312 fall just outside the
range for “grain-rich”. Following the same logic as for K1 at
Skovby Nygård, these houses are interpreted as burnt. The
Figure 6.
Spatial distribution of grain/seeds
(above) and charcoal (below) in House
K5 at Flensted. The symbols showing the
concentrations of grain/seeds are colour
coded with red for grain-rich assemblages,
green for weed-rich assemblages, yellow
for chaf rich assemblages and grey for
mixed materials (
cf.
Figure 3). The charcoal
overlay also shows the sample numbers.
GIS-data courtesy of Skanderborg Museum.
Figure 7.
Spatial distribution of grain/seeds (left) and charcoal (right) in
House K1 at Skovby Nygård. The symbols showing the concentrations of
grain/seeds are colour coded with red for grain-rich assemblages, green
for weed-rich assemblages, yellow for chaf rich assemblages and grey for
mixed materials (
cf.
Figure 3). The charcoal overlay also shows the sample
numbers. GIS-data courtesy of Skanderborg Museum.
even distribution of charcoal throughout the houses seems to
support this assumption. There are no obvious “peaks” and
the pattern may thus refect charcoal from the house structure
itself.
0 10 m
0 10 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
56
5.4. A three phased farm at Odensevej
This site is the most complex of the ones included in this paper
because the three construction phases are superimposed on
top of each other. However, in only one case did a feature
from one phase (phase 3) intersect (barely) a posthole
belonging to a previous one (phase 2). These postholes were
qualitatively compared but showed no obvious similarities
indicative of contamination. The latest phase (phase 4)
showed traces of extensive fre. The middle phase (phase 3)
showed no evidence of burning, while the earliest phase
(phase 2) did show some higher presence of burnt materials,
but less prominently than in phase 4 (Christensen and
Hansen, 2008).
Starting with the latest phase (phase 4), the botanical
analysis seems to confrm the excavator’s interpretation
of this house being afected by fre. The concentrations of
charred material (Table 2) are the highest of all included in this
paper and the individual samples can clearly be categorised
as either grain-rich or weed-rich (Figure 5). The distribution
of this material in space (Figure 9) is recognisable. Just as
at Gedved Vest, there is a concentration of grain in the west
and a concentration of weeds in the east. Notable, also, is
that the outbuildings show much lower content of carbonised
material than the longhouse. This probably means that only
the longhouse was afected by fre.
The results for the middle phase are also consistent with
the feld observations that this was an unburnt house. The
concentrations of carbonised material are low, and the
assemblages are mixed. The longhouse shows a higher
presence of both charcoal and grains and seeds in its western
section, and little material in the east. This distribution is
similar to the one observed in the presumably unburnt house
at Flensted. One of the outbuildings of phase 3 shows higher
concentrations of charcoal than the longhouse, but not as
high as those in the houses which have so far been presumed
as burnt. This house may have fulflled a function in the
handling of burnt refuse from the longhouse, or it may have
contained its own freplace.
The earliest phase (phase 2) is one with more
contradictions. The concentrations of both charcoal and
grain and seeds are overall low which should indicate an
unburnt structure. However, while most samples are mixed,
there is also a group of weed-rich assemblages distributed
clearly in the central and eastern part of the house. In
accordance with the theory outlined at the start of the paper,
it is difcult to envisage why larger amounts of weeds
would become deposited in just one part of a house unless
it had burnt down. Furthermore, the distribution of both
seeds and grains and charcoal is even throughout the length
of the house, which would be consistent with a house fre.
Balancing these observations against each other seems to
point towards this phase of Odensevej as also having been
burnt, but for some reason the concentrations of charred
material in the postholes remained low, and the assemblages
became more mixed than in the other burnt houses. The
fact that phase 2 was the earliest habitation phase may
perhaps explain some of the contradictory evidence. The
constructional similarities between the phases of Odensevej
Figure 8.
Spatial distribution of grain/seeds (left) and charcoal (right) in houses A11312 and A11320 at Gedved Vest. The symbols showing the concentrations
of grain/seeds are colour coded with red for grain-rich assemblages, green for weed-rich assemblages, yellow for chaf rich assemblages and grey for mixed
materials (
cf.
Figure 3). The charcoal overlay also shows the sample numbers. GIS-data courtesy of Horsens Museum.
0 15 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
57
Figure 9.
Spatial distribution of grain/seeds (left) and charcoal (right) at a three phased farmstead at Odensevej. Phase 2 (top), phase 3 (middle) and phase
4 (bottom). The symbols showing the concentrations of grain/seeds are colour coded with red for grain-rich assemblages, green for weed-rich assemblages,
yellow for chaf rich assemblages and grey for mixed materials (
cf.
Figure 3). The charcoal overlay also shows the sample numbers. GIS-data courtesy of
Odense Museum.
and the consistent placement and alignment of the various
farm elements seem to indicate a strong continuity of
habitation without signifcant hiatuses. This probably
means that phase 3 was constructed immediately after the
suggested fre of phase 2. It is perhaps possible that the
immediate re-utilisation of the area and the building of a
new farmstead may have disturbed the charred material
lying on the ground, resulting in more mixed assemblages. It
is also possible that construction activities, such as levelling
of the ground, afected the fow of carbonised material into
the posthole flls. A fnal explanation could be that the house
was intentionally burnt to clear the area, perhaps after it was
emptied and/or partly deconstructed, in which case there
would have been less material to carbonise.
5.5. Grain measurements as supporting evidence for the
inferred processing stages
A fnal piece of botanical evidence are the sizes of the cereal
grains themselves in assemblages categorised as either
grain-rich or weed. Logically, grain recovered from weed-
rich assemblages should be smaller than that in the grain-rich
assemblages of the same house.
0 20 m
0 20 m
0 20 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
58
In this paper only the grain sizes for the two houses of
Gedved Vest and phase 4 of Odensevej were measured. In
the other cases there was insufcient intact grain in the weed-
rich assemblages to attempt a comparison. The only cereal
which was sufciently present to allow for comparison was
hulled barley.
The results (Figure 10) show that there is a fair amount of
overlap between the assemblages and that the sample sizes
in some cases (particularly for the weed-rich assemblages)
could have been larger since the cumulative mean graphs
have not attained a fat line. Still, the overall trend is obvious.
In all three cases the average length and width of grain in
grain-rich assemblages is around 1 mm or more larger than
that of the corresponding weed-rich assemblage. These
results thus seem to confrm the interpretation of A11312,
A11320 and phase 4 of Odensevej as outlined above.
6. Discussion
6.1 Designated space in late Iron Age houses
As seen from the results, 3
rd
–6
th
century houses display a
binary pattern of distribution of carbonised plant macro
remains. This may indicate that the houses were divided
into at least two main spaces with diferent functions. Such
interpretation is consistent with the established archaeological
understanding of these structures (see Section 1). Because
this pattern has also been observed at numerous other sites in
Denmark and southern Sweden (Viklund, 1998; Henriksen,
2003; 2007; Andréasson, 2008; Andreasen, 2015; Jensen,
2015; 2019), we are possibly seeing the botanical refection
of a widespread and well-established tradition of ordering
space.
In houses which are presumed to be unburnt, the twofold
division of space is seen as concentrations of charred material
in one half of the house and an absence of the same material
in the other. The assemblages in these cases generally show
a mixed character and low total concentrations of charred
remains. This would be consistent with small-scale and fairly
random carbonisations during everyday activities. The peaks
in charred material may refect the locations of household
hearths.
In houses which seem to have been burnt, the image
provided is sharper; the west/north-west sections of the
houses show sizable grain-rich assemblages, which could
derive from the storage of cereals. It is unknown whether
this is large-scale storage of entire harvests or of smaller
batches brought into the house before consumption. Large
assemblages of arable weeds occur to the east/south-east
of the house centre. Also notable is that the weed-rich
assemblages tend to cluster in one or two pairs of postholes.
This could mean that grain cleaning occurred either in a
separate room or in a designated corner of a larger space.
Both these alternatives are sensible as it is known from
historical sources that pre-modern grain cleaning released
hazardous amounts of dust and mould into the air which over
time could lead to a condition known as threshers-lung. This
health problem is mentioned already in medieval Danish
texts and may well have been recognised also during the
late Iron Age (Mårtensson and Svala, 1998; Rylander and
Schilling, 1998).
6.2. Processing but not threshing?
In south Scandinavian overviews of Iron Age farming, it
is regularly suggested that the threshing of cereals was
performed inside houses (Jensen, 2003, p.218; Näsman,
Figure 10.
Grain sizes of hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare) from grain-rich and weed-rich assemblages at Gedved Vest, houses A11312 and
A11320 and Odensevej, phase 4. Top row shows scatter plots of the individual measurements while the bottom row shows the cumulative mean for the
lengths and widths from each type of assemblage.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
59
2009, p.103), for example by Näsman, who writes that: “as
was observed by the Greek explorer Pythaeas [of Massalia]
already in the 4
th
century BC, threshing was performed
indoors”. Viklund (1998) also refers to historical records
of indoor threshing when interpreting Iron Age houses.
In this study, however, no chaf-rich assemblages have
been observed. The weed concentrations in the houses, as
understood through the lens of ethnographic comparative
data (see Section 3.1), seem rather to refect the fne sieving
of grain, which is a processing stage that occurs after
threshing. This could partly be an efect of preservation.
Rachises, straw and glumes are more easily destroyed by fre
than grain and the seeds of some weedy species (Boardman
and Jones 1990). However, since chaf does occur in other
contexts from roughly this period (
e.g.
in drying kilns,
Grabowski, 2015b), poor preservation cannot fully explain
the absence of such remains in the houses.
In England, where comparison of grain, weed and chaf-
rich site assemblages has a longer history, the absence of
early processing stages has sometimes been interpreted as
an indication of “consumer sites” which got partly processed
grain from “producer sites” (see Veen van der and Jones,
2006 and the summarised debate therein). In a Nordic
setting, such interpretation would contrast against the current
understanding of mid-1
st
millennium economy, where
farmsteads are assumed to have predominantly functioned
as independent productive units engaged in the full spectrum
of crop and animal husbandry (Hedeager and Kristiansen,
1988; Hvass
et al.
, 1988; Jensen, 2003; Holst, 2010; Hansen,
2015). It is therefore more likely that that the absence of
remnants from the early processing stages means that these
phases of processing were performed in ways and locations
which have made them archaeobotanically less visible or
less likely to be sampled.
6.3. Stalling but no fodder?
In northern Sweden, some 700–900 km north of the case
studies of this paper, several analyses of burnt down Iron
Age longhouses have revealed concentrations of the
seeds/fruits of grasses (Poaceae), rushes (
Juncus
spp) and
sedges (Cyperaceae) in what is presumed to have been
the byres (Engelmark, 1981; Ramqvist, 1983; Wennberg,
1985; Viklund, 1998). These fnds have been interpreted
as evidence of the storage and use of fodder for winter-
stalled animals. Similar fnds are absent in the houses of
this study and appear to be generally rare in houses from
southern Scandinavia. This could indicate that fodder was
stored more rarely or in diferent ways in the south than in
the north. This should, however, not be seen as contradicting
evidence for the presence of byres in houses with animal
stalls, or where phosphate studies indicate their presence.
The key diference may rather have been in the nature of
the stalling. Animal fodder may, for example, have been
stored outside of the longhouses where it may not have been
extensively exposed to fre, for example in the outbuildings
or under the roofed enclosures. Climate may be another
factor. In southern Scandinavia it is usually possible to
practice grazing throughout the year without any harm to the
animals. In fact, Zimmermann (1999) lists numerous reasons
for why prolonged stalling is unhealthy for both people and
animals. Possibly, the animals were only brought into the
stalls at night or for short periods of the year and got most
of their fodder outdoors (
cf.
discussion in Kveiborg, 2009).
In northern Sweden the thicker snow cover usually prevents
grazing for several months of the winter, which may have
resulted in diferent solutions for stalling and fodder storage.
6.4. Acknowledging ambiguous results
The results of the analysis of phase 2 of the Odensevej
site (Section 5.4.) have already been mentioned as more
ambiguous than those of the other cases. The concentrations
of charred material point to this being an unburnt farmstead,
while the distribution pattern and assemblage composition
indicates a fre. In Section 5.4., this is discussed as a possible
efect of an assumed immediate re-utilisation of the area for
another phase of habitation. On a similar note, in Section
Figure 11.
Depiction of the threshing of
grain with fails in the Luttrel Psalter (mid-
14
th
century). Based on the results of this
study, it appears that threshing in the 3
rd
to
6
th
century AD was not performed inside the
longhouses but may have been performed
outdoors. Source: Wikimedia Commons,
image in public domain (CC0 1.0).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
60
3.2, where the principles of this study are described, it is
noted that chance will always have been a factor in how the
postholes of houses flled up with material and how they
became preserved for posterity.
A more nuanced way of framing the unpredictability of
posthole fll formation is to acknowledge that the postholes
have unique, diverse and complex “biographies”. Theuws
(2014, p.319) has schematically outlined more than a dozen
ways in which posts may have been “retired”: among
others, through variations of demolition, where posts were
either broken of above ground or completely dug out, or by
abandonment, where posts were allowed to slowly rot away.
At Butser Ancient Farm an unexpected result of a study
was that the posts of an experimental round-house rotted
away at ground level after only a few years, leaving the rest
standing fatly on the ground, but still steadily due to the
weight of the roof (Reynolds, 1994). Since the postholes
in this case were “sealed” early during the lifespan of the
house, the material therein was found to refect only the
earliest stages of house use. We must assume that the way
in which a house sufered “wear and tear”, and how it was
abandoned, has an infuence on the formation of botanical
posthole records.
One last complexity is that studies have occasionally
indicated intentional, possibly ritual/symbolic, depositions
of charred macro remains in postholes (Regnell, 1997;
Jensen
et al.
, 2010). Such depositions would also have
afected the concentrations of charred material. Considering
these possibilities, it would seem that some ambiguity will
always be a part of analysing settlement remains.
While the complexity described above could be perceived
as discouraging rather than inspirational for the spatial
analysis of plant macro-remains and other small artefacts,
the situation can also be a starting point for qualitative
interpretations of specifc and unique events. The idea of
a fre in phase 2 of Odensevej, followed by immediate re-
building of a similar, but also larger and more substantial
farmstead on top of the old one, is largely speculative. It
does, however, also tell a very human story of the ups and
downs of domestic life in the past.
6.5. Multidisciplinary integration
This paper has focused on the contribution that
archaeobotanical analysis can make to the understanding
of the use of settlement space. The limited methodological
scope of this paper is partly because the presented houses did
not provide much other evidence about the use of space. It
has, moreover, been pursued intentionally as a demonstration
of the level of detail which can be attained through botanical
analysis alone.
A more complete understanding of the use of space
can, however, only be achieved through solid integration
of available archaeological methods. Any single proxy
for the human use of space is bound to quickly reach a
“ceiling” beyond which few meaningful inferences can
be made. This can be illustrated with the distribution of
grain-rich assemblages in the western/north-western ends
of the houses presented in this paper. Are these traces of
a smaller-scale presence of grain brought into the house
for cooking, or did these segments of the longhouses also
function as the cereal stores of the farm? The latter could
have been feasible, for example, on a loft above the dwelling
area (
cf.
discussion in Rowley-Conwy, 2000). Only by
engaging in multiproxy studies, where several methods
with overlapping abilities to infer past activities, but
diferent ways in which they are limited by archaeological
fragmentation, can a more complete understanding of the
use of space be achieved.
Botanical analysis of house features is ideally suited for
integration into smarter ways of excavating and analysis.
Even when the use of space is not the main aim of a study,
house features must regularly be sampled for datable
material. The screening of samples for organic material for
radiocarbon dating can thus also double as an inventory of
suitable contexts for spatial analysis. Another advantage
is that botanical analysis relies on the use of standardized
sieve mesh sizes, which are also useful for collecting other
materials (bone, pottery, wall daub,
etc.
). In many ways this
method is preferable to hand collecting during excavation,
since it is consistent and does not miss even smaller fnds.
Some of the efort involved in collecting botanical material
can therefore be ofset by making it double as the main
retrieval procedure for artefacts in posthole flls.
In my experience, the main challenges in improving
the archaeobotanical analysis of settlements, as well as
integrating plant macrofossil analysis into multidisciplinary
projects, is less a problem of methodology than one of
project design and logistics. This is positive, because once
all the actors within a project understand each other, projects
can be rapidly improved.
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my thanks to the friends and colleagues
who have contributed with comments and perspectives on
the contents of this paper over the course of its numerous
versions: prof. Karin Viklund (Umeå University), Dr. Santeri
Vanhanen (Swedish Historiscal Museums), Marianne Høyem
Andreasen and Peter Mose Jensen (Moesgaard Museum)
and Simone Bloo (BAAC archaeology and building history).
I furthermore wish to thank the excavators of the projects
mentioned in this paper for their excellent feld sampling and
cooperation throughout the analyses: Esben Hansen and Kent
Laursen (formerly at Horsens Museum), Merethe Schifter
Bagge and Anja Vegeberg Jensen (Skanderborg Museum),
and Jesper Hansen (Odense Museum). Lastly, I also wish
to acknowledge the constructive comments from the two
reviewers, which have improved this paper, as well as the
editors and staf of IANSA for providing archaeology with a
methodologically diverse journal accessible by all along the
principles of open access. This paper was completed as part
of project Dnr. 2015-00329 funded by the Swedish Research
Council.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
61
References
ANDREASEN, M.H., 2015. SBM 1221, Bøgely I, etape I, III og V (FHM
4296/1280).
Makrofossilanalyser af en staklade, huse, gruber og ovne
fra yngre bronzealder til yngre germansk jernalder
. Århus: Moesgaard
Museum.
ANDRÉASSON, A., 2008. Kulturväxter, nyttoväxter och ogräs – en analys
av förkolnat växtmaterial. In:
Fest Slakt Odling. Neolitikum och järnålder
i Hyllie
. Malmö: Malmö Kulturmiljö, pp. 98–149.
ANON., n.d. http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/. ImageJ-software.
BOARDMAN, S. and JONES, G. 1990. Experiments on the efects of
charring on cereal plant components.
Journal of Archaeological Science
,
17(1), 1–11.
BRØNDEGAARD, V., 1978.
Folk og fora: dansk etnobotanik
. Vol 1–4.
København: Rosenkilde og Bagger.
CHRISTENSEN, L.B. and HANSEN, J., 2008.
OBM 2832 Odensevej,
Rynkeby – Arkæologisk udgravning af boplads fra yngre romersk
jernalder/germansk jernalder
. Odense: Odense Bys Museer.
ENGELMARK, R., 1981. Carbonized plant material from the Early Iron
Age in N Sweden. In: C. Nilsson and L. Kullman, eds.
Studies in boreal
plant ecology
. Umeå: Umeå University, pp. 39–43.
ENGELMARK, R., 1985. Carbonised seeds in postholes – a refection of
human activity,
ISKOS
, 5, 205–210.
ENGELMARK, R., 1989. Weed seeds in archaeological deposits. Models,
experiments and interpretations. In: T.B. Larsson and H. Lundmark,
eds.
Approaches to Swedish prehistory. A spectrum of problems and
perspectives in contemporary research
. Oxford, pp. 179–187.
ERIXON, S., 1956.
Lantbruket under historisk tid med särskild hänsyn till
bondetraditionen
. Nordisk kultur, 13.
ETHELBERG, P., 2003. Gården og landsbyen i jernalder og vikingetid (500
f.Kr . 1000 e.Kr.). In: P. Ethelberg
et al.
, eds.
Det Sønderjyske Landbrugs
Historie. Jernalder, Vikingetid og Middelalder
. Haderslev: Haderslev
Museum & Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, pp. 123–370.
FULLER, D.Q., STEVENS, C. and MCCLETCHIE, M., 2014. Routine
activities, tertiary refuse, and labor organization. Social inferences from
everyday archeobotany. In: M. Madella, C. Lancelotti, and M. Savard,
eds.
Ancient plants and people: contemporary trends in archaeobotany
.
Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, pp. 174–217.
GRABOWSKI, R., 2009.
OBM 2832, Odensevej. Arkeobotanisk analys
av hus från Yngre Romersk Järnålder/Germansk Järnålder (FHM
4296/600)
. Århus: Moesgård Museum.
GRABOWSKI, R., 2013. Cereal cultivation in east-central Jutland during
the Iron Age, 500 BC–AD 1100.
Danish Journal of Archaeology
, 2,
164–196.
GRABOWSKI, R., 2014a.
Cereal husbandry and settlement: expanding
archaeobotanical perspectives on the southern Scandinavian Iron Age
.
Umeå: Environmental Archaeology Laboratory.
GRABOWSKI, R., 2014b.
OBM, Odensevej (FHM 4296/600). Komplement
till rapport nr 13 2009. Fördjupad arkeobotanisk funktionsanalys av
gårdsanläggningarna K15, K14 och K13
. Århus: Moesgaard Museum.
GRABOWSKI, R., 2015a.
SBM 1220 Flensted I, etape I, II och III (FHM
4296/1427). Arkeobotanisk analys av ett hus från yngre romersk/äldre
germansk järnålder och gropanläggningar från äldre järnålder
. Århus:
Moesgård Museum.
GRABOWSKI, R., 2015b.
SBM 1297 Skovby Nygård etape 1 (FHM
4296/1333). Arkeobotanisk analys av två hus och en ugnsanlæggning
från yngre romersk/germansk jærnålder
. Århus: Moesgård Museum.
GRABOWSKI, R. and LINDERHOLM, J., 2014. Functional interpretation
of Iron Age longhouses at Gedved Vest, East Jutland, Denmark:
multiproxy analysis of house functionality as a way of evaluating
carbonised botanical assemblages.
Archaeological and Anthropological
Sciences
,
6, 329–343.
GUSTAFSSON, S., 2000. Carbonized Cereal Grains and Weed Seeds
in Prehistoric Houses—an Experimental Perspective.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 27, 65–70.
HANSEN, E.K., 2012.
HOM 2247, Gedved Vest Industri etape 1
. Horsens:
Horsens Museum.
HANSEN, J., 2015.
Landsbydannelse og bebyggelsesstruktur i det 1.
årtusinde – et bebyggelsehistorisk regionalstudie
. Unpublished thesis
(PhD.), Syddansk Universitet.
HEDEAGER, L. and KRISTIANSEN, K., 1988. Oldtid o. 4000 f.Kr.–1000
e.Kr. In: C. Bjørn, ed.
Det danske landbrugs historie
. Copenhagen:
Landbohistorisk Selskab, pp. 1–203.
HENRIKSEN, P.S., 2003. Yngre Jernalders Agerbrug i Sønderjylland –
Arkæobotaniske Analyser. In: S. Eisenschmidt, L. Matthes, and M.
Nissen, eds.
Arkæologi i Slesvig. Symposium Jarplund 21/3–22/3 2003
.
99–112.
HENRIKSEN, P.S., 2007.
Makrofosilanalyserne fra Hus CCCCXV,
Vorbasse.
National Museum of Denmark.
HENRIKSEN, P.S. and ROBINSON, D., 1996. Early Iron Age agriculture:
archaeobotanical evidence from an underground granary at Overbygård
in northern Jutland, Denmark.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
, 5,
1–11.
HERSCHEND, F., 2009.
The Early Iron Age in South Scandinavia: social
Order in Settlement and Landscape
. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
HILLMAN, G., 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from
charred remains of crops. In: R. Mercer, ed.
Farming practice in British
prehistory
. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 123–162.
HILLMAN, G., 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the
application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: W. van Zeist and
W. Casparie, eds.
Plants and ancient man
. Rotterdam, pp. 1–41.
HOLST, M.K., 2010. Inconstancy and stability – Large and small farmsteads
in the village of Nørre Snede (Central Jutland) in the frst millennium AD.
Settlement and coastal research in the southern North Sea region
, 33,
155–179.
HVASS, S., MORTENSEN, P. and RASMUSSEN, B., 1988. Jernalderens
bebyggelse. In: P. Mortensen and B.M. Rasmussen, eds.
Fra stamme
til stat i Danmark 1. Jernaderens stammesamfund
. Højbjerg: Jysk
Arkæologisk Selskab, pp. 53–92.
JENSEN, A.V., 2013.
SBM 1297 Skovby Nygård etape I. Kulturhistorisk
rapport
. Skanderborg: Skanderborg Museum.
JENSEN, J., 2003.
The Prehistory of Denmark
. London and New York:
Routledge.
JENSEN, P.M., 2015. S
IM 50/2010, Vestergård (FHM 4692/1498).
Arkæobotanisk analyse af tagstolpehuller i langhus fra germansk
jernalder
. Århus: Moesgård Museum.
JENSEN, P.M., 2019.
Fynske arkæobotaniske fund fra landbebyggelse
i perioden fra romersk jernalder til middelalder. Delrapport 1 af
forskningsprojektet Landsbydannelse og bebyggelsestruktur i det 1.
årtusinde
. CENTRUM. Forskningscenter for centralitet/Odense Bys
Museer.
JENSEN, P.M., ANDREASEN, M.H. and MIKKELSEN, P.H., 2010.
Bulbous oat grass – a magic plant in prehistoric Jutland and Funen.
In: C.C. Bakels
et al.
, eds.
Of plants and snails. A collection of papers
presented to Wim Kuijper in gratitude for forty years of teaching and
identifying
. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 103–114.
JONES, G., 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains:
ethnographic models from Greece. In: W. van Zeist and W. Casparie, eds.
Plants and ancient man
. Rotterdam, pp. 43–62.
JONES, G., 1990. The application of present-day cereal processing studies
to charred archaeobotanical remains.
Circaea
, 6, 91–96.
JONES, G. and HALSTEAD, P., 1995. Maslins, mixtures and monocrops:
on the interpretation of archaeobotanical crop samples of heterogeneous
composition.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 22, 103–114.
JONES, M., 1985. Archaeobotany beyond Subsistence Reconstruction. In:
G.W.W. Barker and C. Gamble, eds.
Beyond domestication in prehistoric
Europe
. London: Academic Press, pp. 107–128.
KVEIBORG, J., 2009. Bondens dyr-husdyrhold i ældre jernalder belyst ved
fund af indebrændte dyr. Delrapport VI: Diskussion af staldbrug i ældre
jernalder.
Rapporter vedrørende zooarkæologiske undersøgelser
, 22.
LARSSON, M., 2017. Barley grain at Uppåkra, Sweden: evidence for
selection in the Iron Age.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany,
27,
419–435.
MAIER, U. and HARWATH, A., 2011. Detecting intra-site patterns with
systematic sampling strategies. Archaeobotanical grid sampling of the
lakeshore settlement Bad Buchau-Torwiesen II, southwest Germany.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
, 20, 349–365.
MÅRTENSSON, L. and SVALA, C., 1998. Fähus som miljö. In: K. Viklund,
R. Engelmark, and J. Linderholm, eds.
Fähus. Från bronsålder till idag
.
Stockholm: Nordiska Museets Förlag, pp. 14–21.
MIKKELSEN, P.H. and NØRBACH, L.C., 2003.
Drengsted: bebyggelse,
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/1 ● 47–62
Radoslaw Grabowski: Burnt grain and crop cleaning residues: an archaeobotanical contribution to the understanding of 3
rd
–6
th
century AD longhouses
in Jutland and Funen (Denmark)
62
jernproduktion og agerbrug i yngre romersk og ældre germansk jernalder.
Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab: Moesgård Museum.
MIKSICEK, C.H., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical
Record.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory
, 10, 211–247.
MOLTSEN, A., 2011. Analysis of plant macro-remains and other materials
recovered from Iron Age buildings and ovens on Zealand. In: L. Boye, ed.
The Iron Age Zealand. Status and perspectives
. pp. 125–138.
NÄSMAN, U., 2009. Jernalderens driftsformer i arkæologisk belysning. In:
B. Odgaard and J.R. Rydén-Rømer, eds.
Danske landbrugslandskaber
gennem 2000 år. Fra digevoldinger til støtteordninger
. Århus: Aarhus
Universtitetsforlag, pp. 99–116.
RAMQVIST, P.H., 1983.
Gene: on the origin, function, and development
of sedentary Iron Age settlement in northern Sweden
. Umeå: Dept. of
Archaeology, University of Umeå.
REGNELL, M., 1997. Växtofer. En förbisedd fyndkategori i huslämningar.
In: P. Karsten, ed.
Carpe Scaniam. Axplock ur Skånes förfutna
. Lund:
Riksantikvarieämbetet, pp. 103–110.
REYNOLDS, P.J., 1994. The life and death of a post hole. In: E. Shepherd,
ed.
Interpreting stratigraphy 5, Proceedings of a conference held at
Norwich Castle Museum on 16th June 1994 and supported by the Norfolk
Archaeological Unit
. Norwich, pp. 21–25.
ROBINSON, D.E., MIKKELSEN, P.H. and MALMROS, C., 2009.
Agerbrug, driftsformer og planteressourcer i jernalder og vikingetid
(500 f.Kr. – 1100 e.Kr.). In: B. Odgaard and J.R. Rydén-Rømer, eds.
Danske landbrugslandskaber gennem 2000 år. Fra digevoldinger til
støtteordninger
. Århus: Aarhus Universtitetsforlag, pp. 117–142.
ROWLEY-CONWY, P., 2000. Through a taphonomic glass darkly: the
importance of cereal cultivation in prehistoric Britain. In: J.P. Huntleyand
and S. Stalibrass, eds.
Taphonomy and interpretation
. Oxford: Oxbow
books, pp. 43–53.
RYLANDER, R. and SCHILLING, R.S.F., 1998. Diseases caused by
organic dusts. In: J. Stellman, ed.
Encyclopaedia of occupational health
and safety I
. Geneva: International Labour Ofce, pp. 1024–1027.
SCHIFTER BAGGE, M., 2016.
Kulturhistorisk rapport SBM 1220 –
Flensted 1, Etape I–III
. Skanderborg: Skanderborg Museum.
STEVENS, C.J., 2003. An investigation of Agricultural Consumption and
Production Models for Prehistoric and Roman Britain.
Environmental
Archaeology
, 8, 61–76.
THEUWS, F., 2014. Vroegmiddeleeuwse huisplattegronden uit Zuid-
Nederland en hun weergave. In: A.G. Lange
et al.
, eds.
Huisplattegronden
in Nederland. Archeologische sporen van het huis
. Amersfoort:
Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, pp. 313–339.
VANDERWARKER, A.M., ALVARADO, J.V. and WEBB, P., 2015.
Analysis and Interpretation of Intrasite Variability in Paleoethnobotanical
Remains: A Consideration and Application of Methods at the Ravensford
Site, North Carolina. In:
Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany
. pp.
205–233.
VEEN VAN DER, M. and JONES, G., 2006. A re-analysis of agricultural
production and consumption: implications for understanding the British
Iron Age.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
, 15, 217–228.
VIKLUND, K., 1998.
Cereals, weeds and crop processing in Iron Age
Sweden: methodological and interpretive aspects of archaeobotanical
evidence
. Umeå: Umeå University.
WEBLEY, L., 2008.
Iron Age households: structure and practice in western
Denmark, 500 BC–AD 200
. Hoejbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society.
WENNBERG, B., 1985. Iron Age agriculture at Trogsta, North Sweden.
Fornvännen
, 80, 254–262.
ZIMMERMANN, H., 1999. Why was cattle-stalling introduced in
prehistory? The signifcance of byre and stable and of outwintering. In:
C. Fabech and J. Ringtved, eds.
Settlement and landscape. Proceedings
of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998
. Århus: Jutland
Archaeological Society, pp. 3011–3318.