Glasses from Scandinavian Burials in the First Millennium A.D.

Author(s): John R. Hunter

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 1, Burial (Jun., 1975), pp. 79-86
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124110
Accessed: 23/06/2010 08:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
World Archaeology Volume 7 No. i Burial

Glassesfrom Scandinavian
burialsin the
firstmillenniumA.D.
John R. Hunter

The majority of Scandinavian artefacts dated to within the first millennium A.D. appear
from the context of burials. Discussion of these artefacts has usually centred around such
broad topics as typology, trade, or general levels of culture, and remarkably little work
has been attempted in detailed studies of the physical deposition of specific funerary
items. This is all the more suprising considering that the artefacts used to interpret the
daily life of an early society are derived almost totally from the circumstances of death,
and not from the circumstances for which they were manufactured or in which they were
most used. Perhaps it is because such a study requires a laborious collection of relevant
regional and chronological data, and because there are few existing works on the subject
to which it could be suitably related, that the work has not so far been undertaken. The
aims here are to outline the problems involved in the discussion of a specific item from
funerary remains, namely the glass vessel, and to illustrate the potential of the subject
for future research.
The difficulties are two-fold. The first is concerned with the evaluation of the source
material handed down by previous archaeologists, and the second is concerned with
interpreting the relationship between context of death and the social environment at the
time of the burial. The first is caused by the absence of written works concerning burial
customs. Norwegian literature, for example, has never really bettered Shetelig's work of
I9I2 (Shetelig I912) and this situation has recently been outlined by Naess (Naess I972).
Studies are usually confined to a specific cemetery or area from a particular period in time.
A more fundamental shortcoming is that much of the earlier excavated material often
lacks any record of the critical archaeological information. There is sometimes insufficient
recording of the nature and size of the burial monument, the stratification of a cremated
layer, the orientation and gender of a skeleton, or the exact position of the grave furnishings.
The second difficulty concerns the relationship of the burial to daily life. Living
conditions at the time of the burial can easily be misinterpreted if this relationship is
ignored. Prehistoric funerary remains are traditionally discussed in terms of the
associated disciplines of anthropology and ethnography. Theoretically, archaeological
evidence alone can build no more than a superficial framework. In the proto-historic
period in question here this emphasis shifts to a dependence upon the seemingly more
tangible conceptual aids to be derived from archaeological evidence, such as immigration,
contact and trade. These are somehow considered suitable, and yet all of them are as
nebulous and varied as anthropological and ethnographical information. There are also
80 John R. Hunter

surviving literary works which are often quoted as describing concepts of death and
which give accounts of burial practices. Relevant here are the passages from the Old
English poem 'Beowulf' describing the funeral of Scyld (Klaeber 1950: 26-52), or the
account of the ceremony at the death of Beowulf himself (I950: 3137-82), as well as a
much-discussed passage in 'The Seafarer', in which the poet describes how his soul longs
to travel to distant lands (Gordon 1966: 33-8), a notion often interpreted as referring to a
'rite of passage'. These sources only suggest the most general concepts of the Afterlife,
and taking into account the heroic tradition in which they were written are unlikely to be
historically accurate. In certain respects, burials such as those at Vendel and Oseberg are
comparable, but like their literary parallels they belong to chieftains, heroes or even
royalty, and their circumstances are therefore special rather than typical.
One is dealing for the most part with the burials of the 'ordinary' man and woman
whose death eludes specific written evidence. Even here, the relationship between the
archaeological remains and the ideas of mythology, such as those recorded in Snorri's
'Edda', is often obscure. Theoretically, anthropology and ethnography should provide
some workable solution, but the backgrounds and parallels are respectively so vast that
it becomes almost impossible to use them. Ucko's article on the interpretation of funerary
remains (Ucko 197I) was no doubt intended to indicate to the archaeologist the breadth
of ethnographic parallels available. Instead, the result may have been to frighten the
archaeologist away from the subject and make him wonder if ethnography can really be
applicable to his problems.
The other alternative, admittedly a dangerous one, is to attempt to study solely the
material remains. This 'material' method has already been the subject of debate (Myhre
and Myhre 1972) as to whether culture change through immigration was represented by
concepts rather than by artefacts. Basic assumptions must be made. The first is that the
items chosen for burial were selected according to certain criteria even although these
criteria are unknown to us (Piggott 1969: 558). The second assumption is that the placing
of items within a burial reflects a deliberate and purposeful act. These actions can be used
to interpret the significance and values of objects at times of death by examining their
condition, their position in the grave, and their relation to other artefacts. This in turn
can help to create a picture of the society in which the objects were used.
Scandinavia has yielded the remains of over 8oo individual glass vessels dated to before
A.D. 105o, and of these approximately 75% were discovered in burials. The basic
methodology for the study of this material (Hunter 1972) has already stressed the
importance of this archaeological context. The regional distribution of glass found
within Scandinavia is listed below (table 8), together with its chronological distribution
for the inhumation and cremation burials (tables 9 and 10, respectively). The Baltic
islands of Bornholm (Denmark), Gotland and Oland (Sweden) are listed individually.
The chronology used throughout is the Swedish system which is divided into four
periods; the Roman Iron Age (A.D. 50-400) the Migration Period (A.D. 400-550/600),
the Vendel Period (A.D. 550/600-800) and the Viking Period (A.D. 800-o1050).
Glass can best be studied in the closed find-groups from inhumation burials.
Cremations, on the other hand, require an understanding of the various methods
practised. There is no guarantee that the cremation grave-goods are totally representative
of the offerings laid on the funeral pyre, and owing to the numerous variants of the custom
 Glassesfrom Scandinavian burials in the first millenniumA.D. 8I

TABLE 8

Geographicaldistributionof glass vesselsfound in Scandinavia, A.D. 50-Io50

Glasses from Glasses from

Location inhumations cremations

Bornholm 3 14
Denmark 91 66
Gotland i8 82
Norway 68 31
Sweden 52 158
Oland 3 8

Total 235 359

TABLE 9

Chronologicaldistributionof glass vesselsfrom inhumations

Location Roman Migration Vendel Viking Undated

Bornholm 2 -
Denmark 83 5 - 3
Gotland 5 8 4 I
Norway 25 36 x- 5 I
Sweden 8 3 8 33
Oland 3 -
...._ .s I^_ v wt h

TABLE 10

Chronologicaldistributionof glass vesselsfrom cremations

Location Roman Migration Vendel Viking Undated

Bornholm 13 I - -
Denmark 66
Gotland I5 31 27 - 9
Norway Io i6 I 4 -
Sweden 23 29 41 43 22
Oland 1 I - 2
4

it is almost impossible to use the resultant furnishings with any degree of consistency.
A noticeable feature concerns the actual positions of the vessels within the inhumation
burial. In many instances there is no information available, but judging from burials
where these positions are recorded there are indications that deliberate care was taken in
the placing of the glass. Two Norwegian examples illustrate this. The fragments from
Foyna (S.M.A 1932: 20, 55) were specially positioned in a small depression in the ground
next to the body, and fragments from Tanum (Oldtiden 1917: 213, 251) were carefully
set inside a pottery vessel. The majority of other vessels whose positions are recorded
82 John R. Hunter

appear near the head of the body, a place usually considered to be reserved for personal or
valuable goods. Fragments from a vessel from Time, Norway (Lorange I875: 57) were
placed in the burial next to a quantity of iron tools and implements. Here the valuable
metal artefacts (bronze and gold) lay at the feet. A possible interpretation may be that the
tools and the glass had some occupational significance, for their deliberate association
is otherwise difficult to explain. The grave was that of a male and can be compared to a
similar example from Birka, Sweden, grave 750 (Arbman 1943: z67-72), where the glass
was placed next to an axe and iron objects. This is a double inhumation containing a male
and a female, the furnishings being positioned next to the male, and the same situation is
reflected in another double burial from Birka, grave 644 (Arbman 1943: 221). Birka,
grave 850 (Arbman I943: 323), contained a further male inhumation. Here the glass was
carefully positioned by the handle of the sword at the side of the body. A spear lay at the
feet and a shield by the head. Apart from the glass vessel, the grave-goods consisted
solely of arms.
This limited evidence offers a few illustrations of the contexts in which glass has been
discovered in the burial. There seems to be considerable potential in examining the
position of the finds, not only in relation to the skeleton, but also in relation to the other
burial artefacts. The impression received so far is that glass seems to have been held in a
particular regard, although the exact nature of this status is unknown. In Birka, grave
649 (Arbman 1943: 228), the glass was positioned in isolation on a slight rise, as though
it had been singled out for some special reason. This idea constantly reappears.
There are several inhumation burials which contain glasses in sets or groups, a
phenomenon usually restricted to personal adornments. Thirty-six burials contained
more than one vessel, and of these thirteen contained matching pairs or sets. The pairs
are interesting in that the burials at both Espe, Denmark (Broholm 1952: 72), and
Store-Dal, Norway (Norling-Christensen 1940: 141), contained pairs of the same type
of bowl. Perhaps this may suggest that the bowls were bought and used in pairs for a
specific function. Both burials are dated to the early part of the Roman Iron Age and
this coincides with the dating of another pair of bowls, from Juellinge, Denmark
(Broholm I952: 73), and a pair of glass cups from Stenlille, Denmark (Norling-
Christensen i94oa). This possibility is emphasized by the appearance of a pair of cups
almost identical to those from Stenlille in a cremation burial of the same period at
Skivarp, Sweden (Norling-Christensen 1940: 142). The Skivarp vessels are complete
and can hardly have been subjected to the heat of the funeral pyre.
Several burials produced vessels which were dissimilar only by way of slight dis-
crepancies in size or decoration, such as the pair of beakers decorated with applied
coloured 'snake' trails from Laebrogaard, Denmark (Eggers I951: no. i86). The pairs of
vessels from Sigersted, Denmark (Broholm 1944), and Selanger, Sweden (Ekholm
I965: I7, 20), differ slightly by way of decoration. Burials which produced vessels in
sets of three include those from Borritshoved, Denmark (Norling-Christensen 1952),
containing three straight-sided cups, from Himlingoje, Denmark (Norling-Christensen
1951), containing three bowls and from Uggelose, Denmark (Thrane I966), containing
three beakers of the 'Snartemo' type. In the case of the vessels from Borritshoved, all
three were carefully placed at the head of the deceased.
Other burials contained possible sets of vessels. An example of this is the burial at
 Glassesfrom Scandinavian burials in the first millenniumA.D. 83

Juellinge, Denmark, which contained a complete beaker with faceted decoration (Ekholm
I965: i6). Also in the grave were fragments of a second vessel which showed clear signs
of faceted decoration and which could conceivably have belonged to a beaker of the same
type. Similar instances occur at Nordrup, Denmark (Eggers I95I: no. 193), where there
is a complete beaker showing 'snake' trail decoration, together with fragments with
similar decoration. Other examples appear in Denmark and Norway. Several burials
yielded fragments of two vessels, neither of which could be restored or reconstructed. An
example of this is the burial containing the remains of two incised vessels from Maele,
Norway (Boe 1920: 249). It should be pointed out that not all glasses within a burial
were necessarily similar. This can be seen from the burial at Varpelev, Denmark
(Engelhardt 1877: 349-72), which contained a bowl, beaker, cup and glass object. A burial
at Hopperstad, Norway (Hougen I968: Ioo), contained a filigree jar and a small flask.
Despite these occurrences, there is clear evidence for the existence of vessels in
matching pairs or in sets of three. This suggests that in daily life the glasses had similar
groupings or even specific functions. This may be emphasized further by the presence of
fragments among these sets. From the evidence available it is difficult to judge whether
some of these pieces were not already fragmentary when placed in the burial and were
put there in order to complete a set of matching vessels. If this can be proved, it shows
that glass was a very significant item indeed.
An immediate problem is that the excavation of many burials, particularly those
undertaken in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, failed to record the position of
the many artefacts and in several instances may have failed to recover all the pieces of a
fragmentary item. It is often assumed that in the great majority of inhumation burials
objects were buried intact and are therefore theoretically retrievable in their entirety,
even when broken. There is, however, some evidence to show that both incomplete and
fragmentary items were used. The accuracy of this evidence requires an examination of
the circumstances of the find and the nature of the excavation proceedure. The practice
of source criticism has already illustrated only too well (Hershend 1970) the dangers of
accepting without question the value of written accounts. The evidence used here is
discussed in full awareness of the limited value of some of these sources. It is un-
fortunately not possible to draw a clear line between reliable and suspect information.
A study of the material shows that the incomplete items can be divided into two groups,
those which have a small part of the vessel missing, and those which occur as isolated
fragments, often from indeterminable types of vessel. Unfortunately, few excavation
reports comment on whether a fragmentary vessel was found 'in toto' or whether parts
were missing. If it can be proved that slightly damaged or broken vessels were placed in
the grave group, then their depositions must represent a significant gesture, and this in
turn may reflect a particular value before burial. The general dating of the fragmentary
items shows that there is a noticeable grouping in the Roman and Migration periods,
particularly in Norway. This is pursued below.
In the first group, consisting of almost complete vessels, all the examples are of clearly
defined types, usually with specific decorative qualities. Two useful examples are from
Norway, from Hibnes (Shetelig 1912: 59) where the foot of the vessel is missing, and
from Naerland (Ekholm I965: 22) where part of the rim has gone. It is possible that these
items were damaged in a minor way and were placed in the burial as representing a
84 John R. Hunter

complete item. Other vessels in the group are less complete but are nevertheless
sufficiently whole to determine the type of vessel and decoration. They include an
iiberfang vessel from Evebo, Norway (Shelelig I912: IIi), a bowl with marvered
decoration from Falkum, Norway (Marstrander 1946), and a large low bowl with a
folded rim from Li, Norway (Ekholm 1965: 26). Even allowing for a certain percentage of
vessels whose condition may be due wholly to bad retrieval, there is sufficient evidence to
indicate that the practice of placing damaged vessels in the grave occurred.
The second group relates to the very fragmentary items. Few of these allow the type of
vessel to be determined, although some are of particular interest in view of their decorative
qualities. There is a marked preponderance of fragments with incised or ground
decoration or with applied trails. In nearly every case the decoration can be compared to
similar decorative forms on complete vessels. Some fragments which bear no traces of
decoration are more difficult to justify in a burial context. It is credible that almost
complete vessels were placed in graves, or for that matter that part of a vessel with a
particular decorative characteristic could have been used symbolically. Undecorated
'simple' fragments are less easy to explain. Nevertheless, this practice occurred and an
example such as the fragment from Haraldstedpladsen, Denmark, excavated and
published by Norling-Christensen (I956: 15), who commented specifically on this
phenomenon, shows that dubious excavation cannot always be held responsible.
Another useful area of study lies in an examination of vessels which show indications
of repair. All these examples appear from Norwegian burials. and date to the Roman and
Migration periods. The best example is perhaps from Solberg (Ekholm 1956: 38). The
circumstances of the find are not recorded but the fragments have been repaired with gold
foil depicting animal ornamentation. A vessel from Snartemo (Hougen 1935) has been
repaired in a similar way with a metal strip riveted around the rim. Greater repairs were
needed on a beaker from Ovsthus (Shetelig 1912: 154) which was fitted with a bronze
strip around the rim and a large bronze plate inside. This illustrates the extent to which
repair work was carried out, for although the vessel may have become serviceable again, it
would almost certainly have ceased to be pleasing to the eye. These types of repair
indicate that the restoration of glass vessels was worthwhile and necessary and this may
indicate that glass itself was valuable or hard to obtain.
The position of Norway in this study becomes continually more significant. It has
already been shown above that the majority of almost complete vessels from inhumations
appears in Norway and that these are dated to the Roman and Migration periods. The
repaired vessels confirm this. Such a situation cannot be accidental and may reflect a
scarcity of glass in Norway at the time. Here one must mention Bakka's article (Bakka
I97I) relating to trade patterns in Scandinavia. His plotting of the 'Snartemo' type of
beaker, which is common in Norway in the Migration period, shows a distribution centred
around two specific areas, Norway and Gotland. In terms of glass vessels, there is a
curious archaeological anomaly. The evidence studied here suggests that glass was
perhaps rare, yet the evidence from the distribution indicates that glasses were relatively
common in that very area. However, Bakka cites this distribution as reflecting
differences in burial practices between these two areas and the rest of Scandinavia. This
would certainly be justified by the evidence discussed here. During the Migration
period Norway seems to have practised rich burial customs, while much of the rest of
 Glassesfrom Scandinavian burials in the first millenniumA.D. 85

Scandinavia at this time followed a simpler practice in which the richly furnished grave
was less common. It cannot be argued that the rest of Scandinavia was poorer than
Norway. One can mention the great MVigrationgold hoards from Sweden. The wealth was
clearly available but is not always manifest to the archaeologist in the places he would
most like to find it. The value of this type of study is now emphasized.
Finally mention should be made of the cremation burials. They contain some interes-
ting features relevant both to the study of cremation practice and to the significance of the
glass vessels. Several burials, for example, yielded complete vessels. The placing of a
vessel in a cremation layer must signify a deposition after the burning. The example from
Mollegardsmarken, Denmark (Albrectsen 197I: 164: I566), indicates that the practice
was not a casual afterthought but a specific and deliberate action. Here the glass cup was
placed among the cremated ashes within the funeral urn. Other examples can be cited,
such as the vessels from Hundstad, Norway (Hougen 1929: 112), and Ostra Vemmenh6g,
Sweden (Eggers I95I: no. 443). Unfortunately no studies have been undertaken with
regard to other artefacts in these situations and it is not possible to draw valid conclusions.
An examination of the glass vessel in this manner shows that glass was in many
respects a commodity of some significance. The position in the burial, the existence of
repaired items, and the presence of sets and fragments all point towards this conclusion.
The appearance of complete vessels from cremation burials emphasizes it. However,
the nature of this significance is open to interpretation. Perhaps one can assume that
glass was costly or difficult to obtain and that it represented status for the deceased.
This will only be understood more fully if associated grave furnishings can be subjected
to the same type of examination.
I6.i. I975 School of Archaeological Sciences
University of Bradford

References
Albrectsen,E. 1971. FynskeJernaldergrave.Vol. IV. Odense Bys Museer.
Arbman, I943. Birka. Vol. I. Stockholm.
Bakka,E. I971. Scandinaviantrade relations with the continent and the British Isles in pre-
Viking times. Early MediaevalStudies. 3:37-51.
Broholm, H. C. I944. En Sjaellandsk Grav fra Femte Aarhundrede. Nationalmuseets
Arbjedsmark. 73-8.
Broholm, H. C. I952. Danmarkog Romerriget.Copenhagen.
Boe J. I920. Norsk gravguldfra aeldrejernalder.BergensMuseumsArsbok.1-73.
Eggers, H. J. I95I. Der romischeImportimfreien Germanien.Hamburg.
Ekholm, G. I956. Orientalische Glaser in Skandinavienwahrend der Kaiser- und friihen
Merowingerzeit.Acta Archaeologia.27:35-59.
Ekholm, G. I965. Als orientalischeangenommeneGlaser Skandinaviensaus dem ersten bis aus
dem sechsten Jahrhundertn. Chr. AntikvarisktArkiv. 26.
Engelhardt,C. I877. Skeletgravepaa Sjaelandog i det ostlige Danmark.Aarbogerfor nordisk
Oldkyndighedog Historie.347-402.
Gordon, I. L., ed., I966. The Seafarer.London.
Hershend, F. I970. Some critical views on Joachim Werner's 'Miinzdatierte austrasische
Grabfunde'.TOR. 48-6I.
86 John R. Hunter

Hougen, B. 1929. Trek av 0stnorsk romertid. [Oslo] Universitets Oldsaksamling Skrifter. 75-126.
Hougen, B. I935. Snartemofunnere. Norsk Oldfund. Oslo.
Hougen, E. I968. Glasbegre i Norge fra sjette til tiende arhundre. Viking. 32:85-110.
Hunter, J. 1972. A brief discussion concerning certain methodological difficulties in the study
of glass vessels of the Scahdinavian prehistoric period. Meddelanden frdn Lunds Universitets
Historiska Museum. o08-22.
Klaeber, Fr., ed., I950. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Boston.
Lorange, A. I875. Norske Oldsager. Bergen.
Marstrander, S. 1946. Et Provincalromersk Glas fra Telemark. Stavanger Museums Arshefte.
73-85.
Myhre, B. M. and Myhre, B. 1972. The concept 'immigration' in archaeological contexts
illustrated by examples from West Norwegian and North Norwegion early iron age. Norwegian
Archaeological Review. 5(x): 45-61.
Naess, J-R. I972. Some reflections on the study of iron age burial customs in Norway.
Norwegian Archaeological Review. 5(I):23-37.
Norling-Christensen, H. I940. Nordiske glas fra Aeldre Romersk Jaernalder. In Fra Danmarks
Ungtid. Copenhagen.
Norling-Christensen, H. I94oa. Stenlille Fundet. Acta Archaeologia. ii :22ff.
Norling-Christensen, H. 1951. Jaernaldergravpladsen ved Himlingoje. Nationalmuseets
Arbjedsmark. 39-46.
Norling-Christensen. H. 1952. Gravfund fra Borritshoved med Romerske Glas og Bronzekar.
Kuml. 84-92.
Norling-Christensen, H. I956. Haraldsredgravpladsen og Aeldre Germansk Jernalder
Danmark. Aarboger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. 14-143.
Oldtiden. 19I7. Oldtiden, Tidskrift for norskforhistorie. Oslo.
Piggott, S. 1969. Conclusion to The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, eds
P. J. Ucko and G. Dimbleby, London.
Shetelig, H. I912. Vestlandske Graver fra Jernalder. Bergens Museums Skrifter. 2.
:S.M.A. I932. Stavanger Museums Arshefte.
Thrane, H. I966. Solhvervsfund. Skalk. 3-6.
UJcko, P. J. 1971. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains.
World Archaeology. 3(2):262-8o.

Abstract
Hunter,J. R.
Glasses from Scandinavian burials in the first millennium A.D.
This study is an attempt to examine the significance of glass vessels from within burials.
Anthropological, ethnographic, and literary evidence is deliberately avoided. The author
maintains that by a careful examination of the material remains from the burial it is possible to
throw some light on the importance of glass in daily life. This can be interpreted from the
positions of the vessels, the presence of sets and pairs of matching vessels, the presence of
fragmentary material in inhumation burials, and from the existence of repaired vessels.
Particular emphasis is placed on the Norwegian material.