Visning av Grave developments

(1)

https://journals.uio.no/PT/index

PRIS KR. 300,- ISSN 1501-0430

arkeologisk tidsskrift23.årgang | 2021

arkeologisk tidsskrift

23

(2)

2021 23. årgang

23

(3)

Primitive tider utgis av Marie Ødegaard (redaktør), Svein Vatsvåg Nielsen, Guro Fossum, Arentz Østmo.

Sekretær: Andreas Ropeid Sæbø.

ISSN 1501-0430 Postadresse:

Primitive tider

Postboks 6727, St. Olavs plass 0130 Oslo

E-post: kontakt@primitive-tider.com Internett: https://journals.uio.no/PT/index Ombrekk: Redaksjonen

Trykk: Reprosentralen ved Universitetet i Oslo

©Primitive tider. Ettertrykk for mangfoldiggjøring kun etter avtale med redaksjonen.

Forsideillustrasjon: Bergkunst oppdaget på gården Elvestad i Råde. Foto: Lars Ole Klavestad.

Skrive for Primitive tider?

Primitive tider oppfordrer spesielt uetablerte forfattere til å skrive. Vi er interessert i artikler,

kommentarer til tidligere artikler og rapporter (enklere, ikke fagfellevurderte tekster). Kanskje blir din artikkel neste nummers debattema! Send inn ditt manuskript og la det få en faglig og seriøs vurdering av

redaksjonen. Husk at hele prosessen kan være tidkrevende, så planlegg i god tid.

send gjerne inn før fristen!

For å lette arbeidet for deg og for oss, er det helt nødvendig at du setter deg godt inn i

https://journals.uio.no/PT/index

Vi ser fram til å høre fra deg!

Kontakt oss pr. mail: kontakt@primitive-tider.com

(4)

7

27

47

59

77

89

99

103

INNHOLD

Del I: Fagfellevurderte artikler

Sandtorg

En vareutvekslingsplass gjennom 1100 år Tor-Ketil Krokmyrdal

Veidekongen, olifanten og bøkeskogen

Jakt, krig og aristokratisk ideologi i vikingtid og middelalder Ragnar Orten Lie og Frans-Arne Hedlund Stylegar Research on illicit cultural artefacts

The case of the Babylonian mathematical cuneiform texts in the Schøyen Collection

Mehreen Sheikh Grave developments

A reworked chronological analysis and interpretation of the burial site at Borre Christina Isaksen Leverkus

Del II: Rapporter

Antallet helleristningsfelt i Østfold doblet

Magnus Tangen, Tormod Fjeld, Lars Ole Klavestad ARCAVE-prosjektet

Antropogene huleavsetninger for rekonstruksjon av marine økosystemer Erlend K.Jørgensen

Del III: Anmeldelser

Mette Løvschal, Rasmus Birch Iversen and Mads Kähler Holst (eds.) 2019:

De dræbte krigere Alken Enge. Efterkrigsritualer i ældre jernalder. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Højbjerg. 289 p. ISBN: 978-87-93423-45-9.

Marianne Moen

Santeri Vanhanen and Per Lagerås (eds.) 2020: Archaeobotanical studies of past cultivation in northern Europe. Advances in Archaeobotany 5. Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen. 181 p. ISSN: 2405-7452.

Anette Overland

(5)

Trond Løken 2020: Bronze Age and Early Iron Age house and settlement development at Forsandmoen, south-western Norway. AmS-Skrifter, (28), 1-300. https://doi.org/10.31265/ams-skrifter.vi28.377. ISBN : 9788277601908 Geir Grønnesby

107

(6)

Grave developments

A reworked chronological analysis and interpretation of the burial site at Borre

Christina Isaksen Leverkus

Fagfellevurdert artikkel

abandonment of smaller farmsteads in favour of larger, centralized places. This structural change in society has been argued to be the result of plagues, natural disasters and/or cultural developments, while the resulting centralization

Research related to Borre has tended to focus on interpretations concerning power and

of this article is to re-examine the chronology and materiality at Borre to better understand the society of the creators of the large mounds (Figure 1). Although an elite had, at times, maintained control at Borre, there are indications that the overall society connected to the site played an important role in the development of Borre’s cultural landscape.

The Burial Site

primarily known for its large burial mounds.

At least nine large mounds have been present at the site, seven of these mounds are still visible

today. In addition, the site also consists of dozens of smaller burials including mounds, cairns, and chamber graves (Figure 2). The earliest graves at while the large mounds have been dated to the have also been discovered close to the Borre burial site with the help of georadar (Gansum

and are interpreted as ceremonial halls, based on their location and artifact content (Myhre 2015:100). These halls are an important part of the development and chronology at Borre and are associated with power and prestige. As important places for religious and political gatherings, they would also have had an impact on the overall al., 2015 for a comprehensive archaeological overview of the site).

A combination of mound size, concentration, site location, large structures and connection to saga literature has established Borre as a central place that developed during the Merovingian Period and continued into the Viking Age

This interpretation follows the general theory time of centralization and power formation (e.g.

(7)

60

2021 23. årgang

interpretation of large mounds, the monumental appearance of the burials at Borre have been understood as further proof of the power of their creators. However, recent research related to mound construction is revealing a greater degree of complexity to their creation and purpose

The complexity of mounds

There are several theories as to why the grave mounds were built. Some of the most common interpretations include boundary markers built for the purpose of establishing and maintaining Ødegaard 2010), symbols of power and prestige

- heless, as mound construction has existed across many time periods and in many locations around the world, it is a poor theoretical approach to account for the construction of all mounds as

the same (Gansum 2004:225). Knowing the full purpose of a mound is, therefore, both varied and complicated. Purposes may be revealed, however, when the mound is understood to be a result of the rites and rituals of a social group (Price 2010).

and beliefs of the society which created the mounds. After all, it is the living, not the dead that perform the burials and connected rituals.

Therefore, the way a society treats their dead can

meaning from material remains created for burial and burial rites is, nevertheless, complicated, and there are several issues to take into account.

Material is highly malleable and identical physical expressions can have varied underlying Social archaeology has sought to understand these psychologies through the material remains

Figure 1: The mounds at Borre, photo by author.

(8)

61

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

Figure 2: Overview of mounds and archaeological structures at Borre. Image by author.

(9)

62

2021 23. årgang

[…] if they were not mediated by things” (see are an example of such a mediation. As constructions made by members of a social group, mounds are a physical social reaction. They also represent a psychological social reaction as the result of social solidarity. The idea that mounds strengthen social bonds is not new, but discussions regarding the topic are often limited Solidarity is discussed as a tool used by the elite to maintain power through rituals and practices of mounds are crucial to understanding the social changes at Borre. The mediation of these important potential, but underlying psychologies Even the simple behaviour of burying human remains illustrates this predicament. The material expression is the same, i.e., the body has been buried. However, the underlying psychologies may be fear of infection, fear of ancestors, respect for the dead, or any other number of reasons, in addition to combinations of these psychologies.

purpose of a mound and its role in society based solely on its physical properties, the underlying psychologies also reveal important aspects about the society at the time of the mounds’ creation.

As a result, a comparison of external events and chronology of the burial site are important clues in understanding the reactions that led to the construction of the mounds.

Understanding the chronology at Borre

The current chronology at Borre is based on excavations and analysis of several dating samples from archaeological excavations

for the site (see Tables 1 and 2), which are still in use today.

As seen in the tables, hypothesis 1 suggests that the monumental mounds at Borre included two phases, the primary phase of their construction followed by a second phase with secondary several of the graves that present highly varied recovered that would suggest a seventh century burial, in addition to a layer of charcoal dated -

a ship burial were discovered. With the help of artefacts and, later, radiocarbon dating, the ship

from a claw beaker stylistically dated to the sixth or seventh century were also discovered.

The claw beaker may be remains of an earlier settlement located beneath the mound, or

Hypothesis 2 suggests a longer continuity of large burial mound construction. In this hypothesis, Myhre suggests that the building of monumental mounds at Borre started at the burials then continued up towards the top of the moraine, over a 350-year period, concluding in Since Myhre presented his two possible hypotheses, little work has been done with re-examining the chronology at Borre, and much of the interpretation of the site is based on assumptions relating to Myhre’s research.

chronological interpretation, this lack of progress is understandable. There is, however, a possibility for improving the chronological understanding of the site by applying the Bayesian method to already existing data.

(10)

63

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

Bayesian Analysis

The Bayesian method is the application of a statis- tical model known as Bayesian statistics. Unlike classical statistics, the Bayesian method relies on probabilities to determine new knowledge, and can therefore operate with much less data archaeology, where dating samples are often stated, Bayesian theory processes priors (known knowledge and probabilities) into posteriors (new knowledge and probabilities). The mathematical archaeology Bayesian statistics has most often been used in relation to radiocarbon dating but has also been applied in bioarchaeology, paleopat- hology, zooarchaeology, artifact analysis, and

development of Bayesian computing programs

open access calibration programs based on the Bayesian theorem, but although both programs are designed for Bayesian analysis, their of several commonly used calibration programs, - logical modelling tool for interpreting data”

model-based and calculates chronology based on graphical elements, making it a particularly useful tool in creating a model and visualizing a site’s chronology. These computing programs, Hypothesis 2

Phase Name Time period

Phase I The smaller mounds period Phase II The larger mounds period Phase IV The grave opening period Hypothesis 1

Phase Name Time period

Phase I The smaller mounds period Phase II The larger mounds period Phase III The secondary burials period Phase IV The grave opening period

Table 1: Myhre's chronological hypothesis 1, (Myhre 2015).

Table 2: Myhre's chronological hypothesis 2, (Myhre 2015).

(11)

64

2021 23. årgang

opportunities for chronological research at Borre.

The priors used in the Bayesian chronological analyses at Borre come from various dating methods. Radiocarbon dating has been the most common, but typology, stratigraphy and shoreline interpretation also reveal important data. Historically, attempts have also been made - research, however, indicates that assumptions not included in this research (e.g. Marstrander

Typology

Most artifacts at Borre come from Mound 1, which was excavated by Nicolay Nicolaysen

which gave rise to a stylistic term: the Borre style. The style developed around the mid-ninth century, based on the discovery of a coin hoard from Hoen, Norway, while the latest examples of Borre styled ornaments appear in the late

contemporaneous, Jellinge style appears to have developed towards the end of the ninth century based on the discovery of the earliest Jellinge style artifact: a strap-end from the Gokstad ship burial. It is possible therefore, that although the tenth-century, full transition to Jellinge style may have happened earlier in Vestfold and at Borre is typologically dated to the latter part of the - sen’s excavation of Mound 1, he also recovered beaker type produced in Northern France or Kent in England during the seventh and eighth centuries (Myhre 2015).

Artifacts have also been discovered in Mound

a potato cellar that had previously been built in the mound, two iron rattle rings and a nail were discovered. These were typologically dated to the Mound 2 may also provide additional stylistic dating, but data related to potential artifacts from the mound is unfortunately limited. The

There is, unfortunately, no record about what happened to the mound (Myhre 2015:42). In

Oslo. The artifacts included several pieces of artifacts from the donor, documented them as following:

church must be Borre church, and the mound is perhaps one of the known large mounds at Vold and the Borre

It is, therefore, possible that these artifacts come from Mound 2, which could then be lack of secure provenience limits the validity of this potential data. Besides these examples there are no other opportunities so far to date the mounds based on artifacts, however, the mounds themselves may also reveal more about the chronological development at Borre.

Horizontal stratigraphy

Horizontal stratigraphy is particularly useful in those cases where there are no other forms of dating available. The Borre burial ground can consisting of a northern and southern burial ground. In the northern burial ground, Mounds surrounding ditch which has cut into these two

(12)

65

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

smaller mounds. This indicates that the construction of Mound 3 is later than that of the two smaller mounds (Myhre 2015:42).

Mound 32 as well as the neighbouring cairn, Mound 33, were previously thought to date to the Bronze Age based on similar cairns in southeast Norway. Myhre, however, argues that since the cairns are located about twelve to thirteen meters above the current sea level and most likely originally built close to the shoreline, they could be no older than the beginning of the Roman Based on this stratigraphic interpretation Mounds 34 and 35 are older than Mound 3 and Mounds 32 and 33 are older than Mound 5. Myhre therefore suggests that the collection of smaller mounds as well as the two cairns gathered in the northern part of the larger burial ground may constitute an earlier, smaller burial ground predating the construction of the large mounds (Myhre 2015:42).

Myhre argues a similar situation in the other end of the burial ground, located in what is now the southern end of the modern park. Southeast Based on similarities in size and meters above sea level to a burial mound nearby (Vestmansrød), Myhre suggests that Mounds 11 and 24 are mounds, Myhre speculates, may have been part of a second earlier burial ground at Borre, also

Radiocarbon dating

The lack of substantial relative dating opportunities at Borre have strengthened the importance

-

also retrieved radiocarbon dates from mounds 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 as part of the Borre Project. Mounds When analysing the radiocarbon samples one is that it has not always been possible to know

exactly what one is dating. Although all samples can be traced back to a particular mound, and always been possible to determine exactly what that feature represents, and therefore what is being dated.

the longevity of trees, which may skew dating results considerably. This is known as the of this is obvious in the data, which shows results with long probability ranges. There exist undated bone samples from several of the mounds, should these be analysed in the future it would most likely result in further chronolo- presents a complete summary of all known dates from Borre. These dates, along with typology, stratigraphy, and estimated shoreline levels complete the list of priors used in the Bayesian analysis of the chronology of Borre.

The priors

Table 3 presents an overview over the priors at Borre that were included in the Bayesian interpretation of the chronological development.

for phases have been provided. These are not the only mounds that have likely consisted of several phases, but the distinction has been made based on the availability of datable material connected to the mounds. The suggested phases are not considered comprehensive since a mound may likely consist of more phases than is represented by dating samples. The purpose of the phases is not to present a perfect chronological understanding of the burial site but is meant as a tool for creating a better chronological model for analysis. The large mounds at Borre are also to be in order but with a gap of unknown duration between them. It is certainly possible that some large mounds are built simultaneously, but considering that they are monuments, it is more likely that they have proceeded and preceded each other.

(13)

66

2021 23. årgang

Mound 1

Lab name Date Material Context

Phase 1: Settlements

N/A Ca. 600-700 AD Claw beaker – Artifact typology Inside the burial

mound Phase 2: Original mound construction and burial

T-8847 BP 1220±80 Hazel F27 Deposit

T-8850 BP 1265±65 Deciduous F24 Possible fire pit

T-8851 BP 1300±50 Birch and hazel F37 Deposit

T-10916 BP 1405±80 Deciduous F20 Deposit

Phase 3: Second burial

T-8844 BP 1235±95 Oak on nail F13 The ship

N/A Ca. 850-980 AD Borre style artifacts – Artifact typology Connected to the

ship burial Mound 2

N/A Ca. 900-950 AD Various artifacts – Artifact typology

Artifacts given to the antiquities depart- ment and thought possibly to originate from Mound 2.

Mound 3

B-51040 BP 1240±70 Charcoal Test pit 3C

B-51041 BP 1190±60 Charcoal Test pit 3C

N/A Mound 3 is newer than mounds 34

and 35 Mound 3 – Horizontal stratigraphy Mound 3 cuts into

mounds 34 and 35 Mound 4

No data currently available.

Mound 5

B-51042

BP 320±90

Due to the late date, the data likely does not represent an active phase of the mound and is not included in the chronological model.

Charcoal Test pit 5B

N/A Mound 5 is newer than mound 32 Mound 5 – Horizontal stratigraphy Mound 5 is built into

Mound 32.

Mound 6

Phase 1: Agricultural period

T-8842 BP 1390±80 Charcoal Trench 6A, layer 14

(agricultural layer) Phase 2: Mound construction

(cremation layer) Mound 7

Phase 1: Agricultural period contemporary to or predating mound

B-59422 BP 1580±70 Charcoal Trench 7A, layer 13

Phase 2: Mound construction

T-10055 BP 1400±80 Charcoal Test pit 7C, layer 2

T-10056 BP 1415±90 Charcoal Test pit 7C, layer 2

Phase 3: Opening of the mound

(14)

67

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

Ua-1555 BP 1065+-100 Sediment

In the surrounding ditch under a layer of spoil.

Mound 8

Mound 9

Phase 1: Previous settlement or original burial

T-3809 BP 1660±70 Charcoal

Charcoal layer at the bottom of the mound.

Phase 2: Secondary burial

N/A Ca. 700-800 AD Iron rattle – Artifact typology

Discovered during excavation of Mound 9.

Mounds 10-31

N/A 1-600 AD Mounds 11 and 24 – Mound typology

Mound 11 and 24 are similar in size and style to dated mound close by (Vestmanrød).

N/A 1-600 AD Mounds 10, 12-23, 25-31 – Shoreline

Geographically dated to same time period based on shoreline expectations.

Mounds 32-33

N/A

Mound 32 is older than Mound 5.

Mound 32 – Horizontal stratigraphy Mound 32 is dis- turbed by Mound 5.

N/A Mound 33 is older than Mound 5 Mound 33 – Mound typology

Mound 33 is of similar type as Mound 32.

N/A 1-600 AD Mound 32 and 33 – Shoreline

Geographically dated to period based on shoreline expectations.

Mounds 34-37, 41-42

N/A

Mound 34 and 35 are older than Mound 3.

Mound 34 and 35 – Horizontal stratigraphy

Mound 34 and 34 are cut off by Mound 3

N/A 1-600 AD Mounds in northern cemetery – Mound

typology

Mound 34 and 35 are close to mounds 36-37, and 41-42.

Mound 38-39

Table 3: Overview of priors in Bayesian analysis.

(15)

2021 23. årgang

Figure 3: Chronological model of Borre created by the author using Chronomodel.

(16)

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

analysis based on the priors listed in Table 3.

purpose is to present a model of the chronological development at Borre upon which the Bayesian analysis is performed. The results from this analysis are listed in Table 4. Table 4 also present a comparison between new and old dates and maximum a posteriori (MAP).

Figure 4 shows chronological timelines of Borre based on old (orange) and new (blue) calibrations. The timelines show that the recali- brated dates have changed the overall timeframe of the burial ground and has also rearranged the chronological order of some of the mounds.

chronology due to limited (or lacking) dates from these mounds.

In several cases the revised chronology has extended the high-probability density region out to be a weakness in the current analysis. With more dating material from strategic stratigraphic layers there is substantial room for an improved chronology. However, the MAP, which refers to the highest mode of the posterior density, region. Some of the revised dates contained no

as the agricultural period of Mound 7 and those dates related to typology and stratigraphy.

mound building appears to begin in earnest when this time there are settlements where Mound 1 is located today and the area around Mound 6 is agricultural land. Mound 1 comes next, built next mound to be built is Mound 6 around 720

into one mound per generation, although the break between Mound 6 and 3 is slightly larger.

There appears to be a transition at Borre during the middle of the ninth century. Mound 3 is the latest of the dated burial mounds. After this the people connected to Borre appear to transition to a reuse of the mounds, although secondary burial also appears to be earlier. If the artifacts which Rygh received do, in fact, come from Mound 2 it may appear that during this time the people at Borre preferred reuse of mounds rather than constructing new ones. This may be due to limitations of resources, although, other,

Phase New dates Old dates MAP

Mound 9 - Mound construction/First burial 200 – 530

Mound 7 - Agricultural period

Mound 1 - Settlements 625

Mound 7 - Mound construction 630

Mound 6 - Agriculturual period 651

Mound 1 - Mound construction/First burial

Mound 6 - Mound construction 560 – 720 720

Mound 9 - Second burial 757

Mound 3

Mound 1 - Second burial Mound 2 - Second burial?

Mound 7 - Opening of mound Table 4: Summary of old and new dates.

(17)

70

2021 23. årgang

much more psychological aspects may have played an important role. There is a tendency in the Viking Age to reuse old burials, indicating and Arwill-Nordbladh 2016).

The posteriors

Based on the results from the Bayesian model a reworked chronology consisting of four phases is presented (see Table 5).

The chronology at Borre can be divided in to four phases. The four phases are similar to Myhre’s hypothesis 1 chronology (Myhre to the revised chronology. The chronology does not exclude the possibility that other phases may have existed. There are also complications related to the suggested chronology including the

Phase 1, ca. 1-550 AD

and construction of smaller mounds from ca.

that several of these early burials are left intact at Borre during the construction of later burials at the site suggests a possible cultural continuity between Phase 1 and 2.

Phase 2, ca. 550-850 AD

The transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 at Borre is marked by the consistent construction of large burial mounds. In addition to this apparently sudden introduction of monumental mounds, there is also evidence of agricultural expansion 2015:106) and the introduction of horticul- tural species such as spruce and hemp (Myhre 2015:105). The dramatic change in the size of suggest an increase of activity starting around the beginning of the seventh century. The establishment of these mounds has always been associated with power and the elite, but new understandings connected to mound research can provide important insights to Phase 2.

The mounds can be divided into two distinct categories, visible and hidden, both of which can reveal bonds of social solidarity. Visible material

Figure 4: A comparison of old and new dates.

(18)

71

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

refers to all the material and their composition that would be noticeable to an outsider not familiar with the details of the manipulation of the landscape: the exterior. Hidden aspects refer to all material that is unknown to the uninitiated but are well known to the creators: the interior (Edgeworth 2016). In this case, it is important to distinguish between the builder and the creator. A creator, as opposed to a builder, refers to any individual who took part in the process of the mounds’ becoming, both physical and psychological. This includes, but is not limited to, imagining the mound, contributing to, and consolidating resources, and of course, partici- pating in the actual building of the mound.

construction of large mounds at Borre during Phase 2 should not be underestimated, as their construction would have changed the landscape dramatically (Myhre 2015:174). The size and physical construction of the mounds at Borre are important. The burial grounds are built to accommodate many people and the large mounds appear to be created as interactive monuments. Myhre (2015:43) argues that the similarities between the large mounds suggests that the creators appear to have built the mounds

7 being particularly good representatives of this.

This model appears to have consisted of a central making it possible to easily circumnavigate the

the ring ditch, was discovered during archaeological excavations at Mound 6 and 7 (the Borre about two meters wide. Other rims have not been time, covering whatever rims may have existed in the remaining unexcavated mounds (Myhre 2015:72). However, the discovery of rims in both Mound 6 and 7, and the consistency in features within the other large mounds suggests rims were also a part of the general model for other large mound constructions at Borre. The mounds ditches. These ring ditches were intersected with a varying number of causeways, commonly referred to as bridges (see Figure 5 and 6).

In addition to these common features, the large mounds are also similar in their dimensions, which are unusually large. The bridges, for example, range between three to six meters in width, creating ample space for multiple people to cross over to the mounds simultaneously New chronological hypothesis with phases

Phase 1: Early habitation and small mound construction 0-550 AD

Southern burial ground 0-550 AD

Northern burial ground 0-550 AD

Phase 2: The larger mounds period 550-850 AD

Mound 7 434-811 AD (MAP 630 AD)

Mound 1 583-804 AD (MAP 692 AD)

Mound 6 497-1086 AD (MAP 720 AD)

Mound 3 569-1070 AD (MAP 813 AD)

Phase 3: The secondary burials period 850-950 AD

Mound 2 Ca. 950 AD (based on typology)

Mound 1 783-1003 AD (MAP 883 AD)

Phase 4: The grave opening period 900-1100 AD

Mound 7 672-1295 AD (972 AD)

Table 5: New chronological hypothesis with phases

(19)

72

2021 23. årgang

understanding the purpose of the burial mounds and burial ground. The monumentality of large mounds is commonly interpreted as symbols of power, based on their visible materials, the - cting them, and the interpretation of how such

not consider the experiences of the groups that created the mounds. Their encounters with the mounds would not be limited to the outward expression of power other non-participatory viewers may experience but would include the hidden aspects they knew as the creators of the mound.

The interior of the mounds also appears to have been part of the overarching model discussed by Myhre. Phosphate and pollen analysis shows that soil from the ditches surrounding the mounds has been added (Myhre 2015:66). The determi- nation of the volume of the mounds and ditches were based on more than simple convenience.

If not, one would see either smaller mounds or larger ditches. However, material from the - cient and additional material has evidently been

material consists primarily of agricultural soil, and the layer of clay in the ditches has been left untouched. The choice of the creators to prioritize agricultural soil, combined with the apparent desire to maintain a proportional relati- onship between the mounds and the surrounding ditches, indicates a conscious construction design of the mounds, but it may also indicate a social obligation of those involved in its construction In their analysis of the mounds at Haugar in Tønsberg, Terje Gansum and Terje Oestigaard argue that the large presence of low temperature burned charcoal indicate that decentralized rituals may have taken place in the various homes of those invested in the burial and later incorporated into a collective funeral (Gansum includes both the material incorporated into the mound, and the parcel of land the mounds have been constructed on. The mounds may, therefore, constitute a collective gift from society, further strengthening social bonds.

In addition to agricultural soil, several mounds also consist of a bottom layer of charcoal (Myhre

Figure 5: Mound 6 showing circular mound, ditch, and three causeways (marked by red lines). Image taken from hoydedata.no, markings of causeway added by author.

Figure 6: Mound 7 showing circular mound, ditch, and three causeways (marked by red lines). Image taken from hoydedata.no, markings of causeway added by author. Note: Myhre 2015:72 shows Mound 7 with 4 causeways.

(20)

73

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

the creation of a substantial amount of charcoal.

The trees used to create these layers appear to consist primarily of deciduous trees such as ash, linden, alder, and oak (Myhre 2015:66). Myhre points out that these types of trees were unlikely and it is, therefore, probable that the trees, as purpose beyond that of simply constructing a mound. That ash was among one of the most considering the important role this species plays in Norse mythology (Steinsland 2005:100-105).

large mounds were not limited to the purpose of burying the dead and expressing power, but strengthening the bonds of a community.

A third indication of the social importance of the large mounds at Borre is the lack of artifacts can be explained by the fact that only one large mound has been fully excavated, and all have been opened and possibly plundered. However, even in plundered mounds, artifacts have still been discovered, and a rich grave would be expected to reveal some artifacts even in cases where only trenches have been dug. The apparent lack of personal items in the large mounds at Borre (when possible secondary burials are excluded) may be because the mounds’ function were primarily social rather than individual. The mounds, it may be argued, did not belong to a family and their ancestors, but to a society where the interred represented a symbolic ancestor to them all. In this way they functioned to bring society closer to the ritual landscape under development and to each other.

Phase 3, ca. 850-950 AD

Phase 3 is characterized by the reuse of the large burial mounds for secondary burials, such as in Mound 1, with potential secondary burials

particularly those from Mound 1, indicate the interment of a rich individual, or at least an individual who was buried with valuable artifacts at his or her burial. Such horsemen

rich collections of artifacts, have been interpreted as graves belonging to the very highest of the social elite, often with military connections (Skre stark contrast to Phase 2 when the large mounds personal items. By Phase 3 the need for social solidarity may have declined, and Borre experi- leading to highly personalized graves commemo- rating individuals rather than common ancestors.

It has been argued that reuse of burials, which was particularly common during the Viking Age, was an attempt at strengthening connections to and Arwill-Nordbladh 2016). These graves, therefore, may have reminded the people of days of greater social solidarity but emphasized the fact that power and control had centralized further since those times.

Phase 4, ca. 900-1100 AD

Phase 4 is characterized by the opening of the large burial mounds. The political tensions and been suggested as possible explanations for the rich burial remains from Mound 1 as well as the In addition, religious motives have also been suggested as the reason behind the grave 2015:131).

- anity likely made an early appearance at Borre as indicated by the medieval church slightly southwest of the burial ground. It is dated to the twelfth century, but the stone church is likely

(21)

74

2021 23. årgang

the replacement of one or several older wooden churches, as has been discovered at many other mounds may have been opened during this and as a means for the people at Borre to distance themselves from their pagan past.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article has been to broaden the understanding of the chronological development at Borre and to better understand the society manifested through the construction of the burial site.

Based on the phases and mound development concluded from the Bayesian chronological analysis, the force of social solidarity has likely played an important role in the construction of the large mounds at Borre. The transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 likely occurred as a solidaric response to changes experienced by the society. This is seen in the social construction of the monumental mounds which focus

represent a greater degree of individualism.

This is seen in the secondary burials within the large mounds and their elaborate grave goods.

Finally, Phase 4 represents the abandonment of the site and a conclusive change in the society at Borre. The development of the landscape at Borre therefore, rather than simply being the results of the manipulation of a royal elite, is the result of several social reactions to change over a millennium.

The mounds, although organized by a certain resourceful group, may have come about as a reaction and response felt by everyone living in the landscape. The construction process, physical appearance, and dimension of the Borre burial mounds may all be clues to a much more societal, rather than elitist, construction.

Summary

The burial site at Borre is a common example of centralization that took place in Scandinavia during the transition between the early and late Iron Age in the sixth century. The major activities of the site are dated to the Late Iron Age, ca.

uncommonly large collection of monumental mounds, has often been referred to as a burial place for kings, and the mounds have been interpreted as symbols of power meant to solidify the control of the ruling elite. This article examines changes that take place during the sites use and discusses four possible phases based on a reworked chronology. The needs and place the mounds in a larger setting than simply elitist constructions. The reworked chronology is based on a thorough Bayesian analysis and suggests some alterations to the current understanding of the chronology at Borre.

References

Artelius, T. 2013 Inventions of Memory and Meaning:

Monuments in South-western Sweden. In Beyond Barrows: Current Research on the Structuration and Perception of the Prehistoric Landscape through Monuments

Society and politics in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla

Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

from Oseberg and Gokstad: An example of power politics? Antiquity

Nasjonalparken. In Borre Bygdebok (red), s.1–26. Borre.

levendes forhold til de døde – en komparativ analyse.

Meta (Lund)

Borrefundet og Vestfold-kongernes graver

Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360.

and deconstructing the Gokstad mound. Antiquity

late Nordic Iron Age and Viking Age royal burial site reconstruction and harbour location at an uplifting coastal area. Quaternary International

(22)

75

Fagfellevurdert artikkel Leverkus

Edgeworth, M. 2016 Grounded objects. Archaeology and speculative realism. Archaeological Dialogues 113.

and Metalwork in the Terminal Migration Period.

Norwegian Archaeological Review omkring storhaugene i Vestfold. Borreminne 20.

Gansum, T. 2004 Hauger som konstruksjoner: arkeologiske forventninger gjennom 200 år

Gansum, T. 2021 The Archaeology of Earth. Current Swedish Archaeology, 12(1): 7-21.

overgangstid. Oslo Archaeological Series 10, Facets of Archaeology. Essays in Honour of Lotte Hedeager on her 60th Birthday

Gansum, T. 2013. Haugar og Haugating: Archaeology of mounds on an assembly site

Tønsberg.

Gansum, T., & Oestigaard, T. 2004 The Ritual Stratigraphy of Monuments that Matter. European Journal of Archaeology

klimatkrisen år 536-537 e. Kr. Saga Och Sed: Kungl.

Gustav Adolfs Akademiens Årsbok

Antiquity

Current Swedish Archaeology

Merovingertiden i Øst-Norge: Kronologi, kulturmønstre og tradisjonsforløp. Vol. 2, Varia, Universitetets oldsaksamling, print. Universitetets oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Iron-Age societies: from tribe to state in Northern Europe, 500 BC to AD 700. Blackwell, Oxford.

undersøkelsen på Gunnerød, Borre. Borreprosjektet.

landskapsanalyse. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

radiocarbon dates of wood charcoal and short-lived taxa from Korea. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

Ynglingatal og Ynglingesaga: en studie i historiske kilder. Rådet for humanistisk forskning.

Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

robust Bayesian tool for chronological modeling:1–26.

how humans and nonhumans swap properties. American Behavioral Sciencist

Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History.

Ways of Relating to the Past in the Viking Age. European Journal of Archaeology

Vestfold. Norsk slektshistorisk tidsskrift:263–276.

interpretation. Scripta Islandica

Borreprosjektet 1988-1990. Oslo.

Norge. Borreminne (print.).

Myhre, B. 2015 Før viken ble Norge: Borregravfeltet som religiøs og politisk arena

fylkeskommune.

Foreningen til Norske Fortidsminnesmerkers, Aarsberetning

30.

American Journal of Archaeology

The archaeology of death and burial.

Stroud, Sutton.

Price, N. 2010 Passing into poetry: Viking-age mortuary drama and the origins of Norse mythology. Medieval Archaeology 54(1):123–156.

Norway during the transition to the late Iron Age? In F.

Iversen & H. Petersson (red.) The Agrarian Life of the North 2000 BC- AD 1000: Studies in rural settlement and farming in Norway

Rogalands merovingertid: perspektiver på en funnfattig periode. Oslo.

reformationen. Ab

Genesis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Vestlandske graver fra jernalderen. J.

Griegs boktrykkeri, Bergen.

Herredømmet: Bosetning of besittelse på Romerike 200-1350 e.Kr. Unpublished doctoral thesis.

University of Oslo.

Kaupang Excavation Project Publication Series, vol. 1. Norske Oldfunn, vol. 22. Aarhus University Press. Aarhus.

Skre (ed) Kaupang in Skiringssal Universitetsforlag

(23)

76

2021 23. årgang

Solberg, B. 2014 Jernalderen i Norge: 500 før kristus til 1030 etter kristus

Oslo.

and their impacts on human activity and settlements in south- eastern Norway. In Settlement Change Across Medieval Europe: Old paradigms and new vistas, N.

Steinsland, G. 2005 Norrøn religion: myter, riter, samfunn.

Pax, Oslo.

The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of death and burial. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

M., Neubauer, W., Paasche, K., & I. Trinks 2020 Halls at Borre: the discovery of three large buildings at a Antiquity

commentary on human/things relations under the banner Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(1):53–70.

The Viking World

Current Swedish Archaeology Ødegaard, M. K. 2010 Graver og grenser - territoriell

inndeling av jernalderens jordbrukslandskap i Vestfold.

Primitive Tider 12:27–40.