This article was downloaded by: [SOAS, University of London]On: 31 January 2014, At: 07:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

Sacrifices of Raw, Cooked and Burnt HumansTerje OestigaardPublished online: 06 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Terje Oestigaard (2000) Sacrifices of Raw, Cooked and Burnt Humans, Norwegian ArchaeologicalReview, 33:1, 41-58, DOI: 10.1080/00293650050202619

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650050202619

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Sacrifices of Raw, Cooked and BurntHumansTERJEOESTIGAARD

Centre for Development Studies and Department of Archaeology, University ofBergen, Norway

Sacrifice is a ritual practice including funerals. Rituals teach people to be-lieve in cultural principles by creating experiences in which they can beapprehended, and therefore rituals produce social order by producing con-ceptual order. The supreme metaphoric symbol is the human victim. Be-yond human sacrifice remains only the sacrificer’s own death. The deadhumans can be seen as gifts to the gods. There are at least three modes ofpreparation of the corpse for the gods: it can be sacrificed raw, cooked orburnt. Cremation as a heat-mediated transformation renders possible atleast two ways of preparing the corpse. The cremated ones may either becooked or burnt. The deceased are prepared in various ways to become ed-ible meals for the deities. The humans are as a banqueting sacrifice re-turned to their land of origin. Social control is defined by hierarchicallyordered powers determining who can be sacrificed and in what manner thesacrifice can be made. In this sacrificial practice the whole cosmologicalworld is incorporated in the resurrection of the society, legitimated by thegods through their consumption of a holy meal.

INTRODUCTION

Sacrifice is a ritual practice that includesfunerals. The deceased can be seen as giftsto the gods that are prepared in various waysto become edible meals for the deities. Im-plied in this approach is a notion that thedifference between inhumation and crema-tion may not be sufficient if we are to ana-lyse the burial custom from a ritual point ofview. We can distinguish between at leasttwo different types of cremation burials:cooking and burning. The dead are preparedas meals for the gods in various ways, withdifferent degrees of heat.

Burial analyses have focused on methodsof body-disposalfrom a functional or tech-nological point of view. By focusing on dif-ferent modes of preparation of the dead for

the gods as sacrifices rather than as meansof disposal, we are able to gain new insightsinto rituals and their function and meaningin societies. There are at least three modesof preparation of the corpse for the gods: itcan be sacrificed raw, cooked or burnt. Thetripartition classification of different modesof preparation covers many body-disposalmethods: raw humans can be offered to thegods as inhumations in the earth, drownedin water or given to the sky through air-burials. A cremation, on the other hand, isa heat-mediated change in the corpse bymeans of fire, and thus, by this body-dispo-sal method it is possible either to cook or toburn the dead body.

Cremation is a transformation and a med-ium through which change and transmuta-tion take place. Cremation burials can be

Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2000ARTICLE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

analysedas three different but interdepen-dent processes:as technologicaltransforma-tions, as social transformationsand as ritualtransformations(Oestigaard 1999). I willherefocusonly on the ritual transformationsof the deceased.In what way can we tracethese three modes of preparation of thecorpsesin the archaeologicalmaterialof theIron Age in Norway? Why do the prepara-tions differ? Why are humanssacrificedtogods?Can we find evidenceof theseprac-ticesin written sourcesandiconography?

HUMAN SACRIFICES

Through the performanceof rituals peoplelearn to believe in cultural principles bycreating experiencesin which they can beapprehended(Valeri 1985:x), and thereforerituals produce social order by producingconceptualorder(ibid.:xi). Henri HubertandMarcel Maussdefined‘sacrifice’ as ‘a reli-giousact which, throughthe consecrationofa victim, modifiesthe conditionof the moralpersonwho accomplishesit or thatof certainobjectsof which he is concerned’(Hubert&Mauss1964:13).The term ‘sacrifice’ desig-nates a complex ritual action, which is afunction of the following features (Valeri1985:38):

— its endsand the occasionon which it ismade;— the deity or deities to whom it is ad-dressed;— the contentof the offering and its sym-bolic value;— the way the offering is treatedandappor-tionedin the rite.

There are different types of sacrificialrites.Expiation is an importantdimensioninmany sacrifices(Valeri 1985:41),but I willfocus on the propitiatory dimensions ofsacrifices.Propitiatory sacrificesare meantto avert potential disorderor to favour therealization of a project or a desired state(ibid.:41). The sacrificial dimensionin fun-erals is the mourners’project of incorporat-

ing the deceasedin the resurrectionof thesociety. To achieve this desired state, themourners or the participants need divinelegitimacyfrom thegods.

A sacrifice involves a divinatory compo-nent, since the participantsbelieve they areobserving the outcome of the sacrifice(Valeri 1985:42). Thus power is generatedthrough the reproduction of structures ofdomination (Giddens 1984:158). The su-prememetaphoricsymbol is the humanvic-tim.

Closer to the sacrifier than all other offer-ings, the human offering is endowedwiththe greatestvalue and efficacy. Beyondhu-man sacrifice remains only the sacrifier’sown death.In fact, this deathis in the logi-cal limit of the sacrificial systemand givesit full meaning.For it is preciselythe sacri-fier’s deaththat the sacrificeaims to avoidby representingit. (Valeri 1985:49)

The offering must evoke not only the deity,but also the results sought by the sacrifier(ibid.:50).Humansacrifice in funerals is one ofthe most efficacious meansof legitimating thecurrentsocialorder.

Theoriesof sacrificehave mostly beenbasedon one of the following thesesor on somecom-binationof them(Valeri 1985:62):

— Sacrificeis a gift to the godsand is partof a processof exchangebetweengodsandhumans.— Sacrifice is a communionbetweenmanandgod througha meal.— Sacrificeis an efficaciousrepresentation.— Sacrificeis a catharticact.Valeri focuses on another thesis that(ibid.:70–71):— Sacrificeis a symbolicaction that effectstransformationsof the relationshipsof sacri-fier, god, andgroupby representingthem inpublic.

This is importantin funeralrites whenthesocietyis threatenedandrecreated.

Thereis an implicit belief that the resultsof sac-rifice, whateverthey are,dependon the previous

42 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

effect, conventionally producedor not, on thesacrifier’s understanding.In other words, theunderstandingand consequent interjection ofwhat god standsfor is assumedrecognizedinevery collective judgementas to the efficacy ofthe rite with regardto its statedaims.(ibid.:74)

Humans have been sacrificed as grave-gifts in funerals.Especiallyfrom the Vikingperiod, there are both archaeologicalandwritten sourcesindicating this practice.IbnFadlan’s manuscript from the Volga (e.g.McKeithen 1979) elaborateshow variousanimalsweresacrificedwhile the chieftain’smenrapeda slavegirl beforeshewaskilledandplacedby her master’ssideon the ship.Thereafter,the ship was ignited and every-thing blew up in a blazing storm of fire.Human sacrifice was an institutionalizedpracticein funeralrites.Living humansweresacrificed along with the dead. The sacri-ficed slaves were the means to the endsdefinedby eschatologicalconceptsdetermin-ing the master’s destiny. The question istherefore:Wasit possibleto accomplishthisaim without themasterasa partof thesacri-fice? Is it the deador the godswho receivethesacrificedslaveasa gift?

It is generallyperceivedthat the slave isthe master’scompanionon the way to theGreat Beyond (e.g. Christensen1992:81,Roesdahl1993:178).If we assumethat it isthe godswho receivethe slaveasa gift, in asacrificial practice,this givesmeaningif theslaveis a meansto an end;the slavescannotbe sacrificed unless they are a part of agreatersacrifice.In this regard,the originaldeceasedis the main personbeingsacrificedandpreparedfor the gods.As a part of thesepreparations,sacrificesof other humansandanimals are part of various means to theend. The fulfilment of the master’sfuneralasa sacrificeto the godsis the ultimateaim.Thus sacrificesof slaveshaveto be seeninlight of the main sacrifice;the godswill di-gesttheir master.

The humansas a banquetingsacrificearereturnedto their land of origin. Thus thereare no contradictionsbetweensacrificesto

the godsand the reunionwith the ancestors.The gift has an immediateeffect upon themindsof the spirits of both the godsandthedeceased.It makes the spirits benevolentbecausethey are carried off to the land ofthe dead. The gods who give and returngifts are there to bestowa considerablefa-vour in place of a small one (Mauss1990[1925]:14–17).When the participantssacri-fice humansto the gods,it is the mostvalu-able gift they can possibly give. In return,theyexpectlegitimacyof thesocialorder.

The deadare united with their ancestorsby the god(s)’ acceptanceof the sacrifice.‘Material and moral life, and exchange,function within it in a form that is both dis-interested and obligatory. Moreover, thisobligation is expressedin a mythical wayand an imaginary way or, one might say,a symbolic and collective one’ (Mauss1990:33).In this way the ritual meal hasitsfunction, and the sacrifice of ‘voluntary’slavesis obligatory as a part of the collec-tive sacrifice.

THE EATERSOF FLESH AND BONES

The soft partsof the corpseareoften treatedas impure as opposedto the presumedpurebones.The fleshis thereforeoften destroyedand left to decompose.But there are otherpossibilities as well. Robert Hertz referredto a more complex representationof theflesh; the practice known as endocannibal-ism, which consistsof the ritual consump-tion of the flesh of the deceasedby hisrelatives.It securesthe flesh the most hon-ourable sepultures.Endocannibalismtakesits place among the various practicesthatare observedin order to lay bare the bonesin the intermediary period between deathand the final funeral rites (Hertz 1960:44).Iarguethat there existedyet one more hon-ourablesepulturefor theflesh,a specialkindof endocannibalism,namelyconsumptionbythegods.

Basedon this distinction betweenchoicesof funeral practices, those who were cre-

HumanSacrifices 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

matedwerepreparedfor thegodsandances-tors in a different way from thosewho wereburied raw. The cremated bodies couldeither be cooked or burnt. They were pre-paredas meals for the gods.When the de-ceasedis preparedas a meal and given tothe god(s),this bearswitnessto a sacrificialpractice where the whole cosmologicalworld is incorporatedin the resurrectionofthe society,legitimatedby the godsthroughtheir consumptionof a holy meal.This alsoinvolves, as Miller argues,a move from aprimary emphasison producingthings to aconcernwith consumingthings. A simplerMarxist ontology insists a priori that socialsystemsandstructuresareconstitutedin theact of production, whereas a shift fromproduction to consumptionhighlights thatconsumption both expressesand resolvesidentity. Peopleconstructthemselvesor areconstructedby othersthroughrelationswithcultural forms in the arenaof consumption(Miller 1998).

The practice of burying humansraw isnormally a type of sacrificeof the deadtothe gods and the ancestors,without anyspecial domestic or householdpreparation.Nevertheless,in somecasesthe body of thedeceasedhad beenritually cut up into partsbefore the various body parts were buriedraw (Lund Hansen1995:256,Skre1998:47).

Cremationasa heat-mediatedtransforma-tion allows the corpseto be preparedin atleast two ways.Most likely thereare speci-fic eschatological ideas connected to themode of preparationselected.The god(s)can eat different typesof preparedhumans.The way in which the dead humans areoffered to the god(s) influenceseither thedestiny of the deceasedor that of the des-cendants.What is given to the god is not thegod’s wish, but the devotee’sown deepmo-tivation (Obeyesekere1990:4).Whetherthedeceasedis offered raw, cookedor burnt isdeterminedby what the descendantsbelieveto be the god’s wishes. The gods, on theother hand, must establishtheir superiorityby giving more than they receive from the

sacrifice.The gods have to give more thanthe humans,and in this way reciprocity cancoexistwith a hierarchywherethe sacrificialexchangemay representthe god’s superior-ity over man. However,sacrificesare morethan gifts, they are representationsof whatthe sacrifier wants to obtain and the condi-tions for this realization (Valeri 1985:66,with referenceto Loisy 1920,Hocart 1927).The offering is incorporatedinto the struc-ture of the society.The performanceof thedeathrituals may enablethe transitionfromlife to deathand the re-establishmentof theideal totality of the living community(Barrett 1994:50), where participants lookforward to the remakingof the community(ibid.:51). Thus sacrificesof dead humansaremadeon behalfof thewholecommunity,but social control is defined by hierarchi-cally ordered powers that determine whocan be sacrificed and in what manner thesacrificecanbe made.

Different godsmay be associatednot onlywith different kinds of food (man–woman,old–young, war captives, slaves, thieves,and so on), but also different modesof pre-paration. Thus social identities may deter-mine the quality and value of the sacrifice.To digest is to concentratewithin oneselfthe activepowerscarriedby food. Like foodnourisheslike; the vitality of the flesh offlesheatersis increasedby meat to a greaterextent than any other tissuesof the body.Foodstuffs possess identical qualities inabundance.They make identity (Zimmer-man 1982:165–196).From the deceased’spoint of view, it is an honourto be digestedby the gods.The deceasedentersthe sphereof the divinities and achievesdivine quali-ties. Thus,thoseperformingthe ritual recre-ate the social structure in a society byranking the valuesof humansacrifices.Cer-tain statusesor eventsin the lifetime maydeterminewhich god the deceasedmust beofferedto, andtherebythe way in which thedeceasedhas to be given and the mode ofpreparation. Cooking, in particular, as amodeof preparationof the corpseis a cru-

44 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

cial point of departure for understandingsacrificesof the deceased.How is it possibleto tracethis in thearchaeologicalmaterial?

DEGREESOF HEATING AND BURNINGTHE DEAD

Most of the documentationfrom excavationsduring the lastcenturymentiononly whetherthe bones where burnt or unburnt, andwhether they were cleanedor not cleaned.Per Holck has carried out a study on burntbonesfrom easternand southernNorway atUniversitetetsOldsaksamling.In CrematedBones(1987)Holck classifiedthe burnt ma-terial in five different groups or gradesofcremationor burning(ibid.:131–132):

— Grade 0: Apparently unburnt. Althoughthe bones came from a pyre, they are soslightly affectedby heat that they show nosigns of being burnt. The bone substancehas not undergoneany visible changeandthere are no signs of deformation of thebones’original shape.— Grade1: Smoothing.Very slight, imper-fect cremationowing to lack of oxygen.— Grade2: Slight burning. The bonesareclearly burnt but have retaineda pale col-our.— Grade3: Moderateburning. Appearanceaboutthe sameasthat in the previousgroupor somewhatpalerin colour.— Grade4: The bonesarealmostwhite andhavea porous,chalk-like consistency.

Some bones bear almost no evidence ofbeing burnt, but it is possibleto determinewhetherthe boneshavein fact beenburnt ornot by examining the content of collagen.Collagenis a proteinwhich is found in con-nective tissue and bonesand which yieldsgelatineon boiling. By putting bone piecesin, for instance,nitric acid, the inorganicbonesubstanceswill be completelydecom-posedand, if the boneshavenot beenburntat all, only a uniform, brownishlump of col-lagenwill be left. On the other hand,if the

bones have been burnt, combustion willhave taken place, and nothing will remain,sincecollagenis destroyedevenat tempera-tures of 130–1508C. Fortunately, experi-mentshave shown that collagenin unburnthumanmaterialdecomposesvery slowly, sothe volume of collagen content in bonesfrom the 10th centuryis 70% and that fromthe RomanAge 35% of today’s contentofcollagen (ibid.:134). Per Holck’s selectedstudy material, i.e. material of cremationgrade 0 tested with acid, proves that thebonesfrom this groupreally hadbeenburnt,whereas their other physical propertiestendedmore toward unburnt material. Thetemperatureprobably reachedno more than2008C (Holck 1987:136–139).

Sometimesthe boneshave actually beenheated,but they are seeminglyundamagedby the cremationfire. Thesebonesareoftencategorizedin the cataloguesasunburntandthus interpretedas inhumations.Similarly,crematedbonesof grade1 (smoothing)arecomparativelycommon.Smoothingis moredependenton oxygen than on temperature,but it is reasonableto assumethat tempera-tureshardly exceeded4008C, sincechangesin bone substancesactually occur at thesetemperatures(Holck 1987:139).Cremationsat grade2 would havereacheda maximumtemperatureof approximately 700–8008C.The most commongradeof burning, how-ever, is degree3, the ‘moderate’ burning.Theseboneshavebeenexposedto tempera-tures of 1000–11008C, whereas bones ofgrade4 have beenexposedto temperaturesprobably between 1200 and 13008C(ibid.:46, 142–146).Of the1042findsexam-ined, the percentagesgive an idea of thenumber of different modesof preparation:6.5% of the bonematerialis burnt at degree0, 11.9% at degree1, 28.0% at degree2,73.5% at degree3 and 37.5% at degree4(ibid.:146–149).There is one problem withthe statistics concerning the burnt bones.Severalof thesegradesof burningcanbe inevidencesimultaneouslyin one single find,makingthe total percentagepointsover100.

HumanSacrifices 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

COOKING AND BURNING THE DEAD

AndersKaliff discussesthe problemof cre-mation burial customsin the BronzeAge inScandinaviain relationto archaeologyof re-ligion. Theclue is the importanceof religionand how variouseschatologicalconceptsin-fluenceboth the societyandthe funeralcus-

toms, and the aim is to illuminate someofthesestructural principles. Analysesof thereligious conceptsof death are a kind ofcognitive archaeology(Kaliff 1992a,1992b,1995a,1995b, 1997, 1998). There are sev-eral ways of crematinga corpse,and suchmodes of preparation are probably con-nected with values and eschatologicaland

Fig. 1. Gravemoundfrom Sandein Gloppen.Source:Schetelig(1912:48).

46 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

cosmological ideas. These beliefs are ex-pressedin the ways the descendantsoffertheir deceasedto the gods,and in the waysthe relatives perform rituals according totheir tradition andtheir ancestors.

The majority of the cremationsare per-formedon, presumably,openfiresandthere-fore the bodiesand the bonesare burnt athigh temperatures.But some are probablycooked as well. Evidenceof low tempera-tures and the absenceof visible signs ofburning are indications of this mode ofcorpsepreparation.The boneshavebeenonthe pyre,but not in thefire. If thefleshis in-tentionally and ritually removed, this mayexplain why there are severalurns in onesingle funeral (e.g. Schetelig1912:35).Oneurn is for theburntbones,whereasotherjarsor urns might havebeenusedfor the flesh.Another pattern found in the Migrationperiodandlater is that the boneswereleft atthe patch,but evenso, urnsare found in thecremationburials (ibid.: 85). The bonesarescatteredaround in the hearth,on the fire-cracked stones or in the charcoal layerbones. The ceramic jars have been inter-pretedasgifts given to the deceased,andaslong asthey did not containburnt bones,thejars have not beeninterpretedas urns. Thematerial remains from cremations, ‘cre-mains’, are usually seen as ashes(Barley1995:39),and thus, the focus on cremationshas been on the efficient body-disposalmethod rather than various modes of pre-paration.

The bonesor the ashesare only one partof the cremains,the flesh is another.Thusjars may have functioned as urns eventhough they do not contain bonesor ashes.When the deceasedis preparedas a meal,other food gifts belong to a different cate-gory of less valued sacrifices,human fleshbeing the most valued sacrifice. The jarsmay in someof theseburials representurnsin which the flesh is offered or given to thegod(s).The mealhasbeenserved.From thispoint of view it does not make sensetointerpret the jars as food gifts given to the

deceasedon his way to the Great Beyond.The deceasedis both the food andthegift.

Several graves illuminate the practice ofcooking the deadon the pyre. Heatmediatedbones without other traces of fire (Holck1987:137)areoneindicationof cooking. An-other featureis finds of cooking-pits or sun-ken hearths in which stoneswere heatedforcookingor roasting.Thesepits in the areaofmounds or cairns contain charcoal, fire-crackedstones,and burnt brittle and soil. Ahuge grave mound was excavatedon Sandein Gloppenin 1906.The moundwas 17.5 min diameter and contained several gravesfrom the Migration andViking period.In thecentreof the moundtherewasa cairn. In thebottom of the gravetherewas also an undis-turbedcremationburial from the Late RomanAge. The bones from this cremation werescatteredbetweenand among the stonesinthe bottom layer of the cairn. Of special in-terestis a cooking-pit in the gravel,0.8 m indiameterand 0.35 m deep.The cooking-pitcontained nothing but fire-cracked stones(Fig. 1), but therehadneverbeenfire in thispit. Thus the fire cracked-stoneshad prob-ably beentransportedto themoundandbeenburiedthere(Schetelig1912:48–49).

A grave mound, known as ‘Kamperhau-gen’, was excavatedin 1973 on Gara farmin Bø, Telemark County, in southernNor-way (C 34333).The mound,which was7 min diameterand 1 m in height, was built ofsand and containeda cairn, 3.5 m in di-ameter, in the middle. The bones, whichwereslightly to moderatelyburnt,with clearcut marks, were those of a 20–40-year-oldwoman(Holck 1987:323)andwerefound ina cooking-pit, or sunken hearth, in whichstoneswere heatedfor cooking or roasting.The pit was 1� 1.6 m in length and 0.5 mdeep and contained charcoal, fire-crackedstonesand burnt soil. The grave-goodscon-sistedof 5 fragmentsof iron as well as 89sherdsof pottery (UniversitetesOldsaksam-lingen hovedkatalog– dokumentasjonspros-jektet). The date of the grave is uncertain,but it probably belongs to the Iron Age.

HumanSacrifices 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

However,it is very unusualto find the cook-ing-pit on themounditself.

FLESH,BLOOD AND BONES

Tracesof cuts on the bonesindicate the re-moval of flesh from the bones.Someof thecorpseshave even beencut up prior to thecremation(Holck 1987:301).A noteworthyfeaturein this regardis the fact that cuttingtools are often found as part of the grave-goods, which may indicate ideas of ritualpollution. Knives made of iron are quitecommon.Fleshing knives or bone scrapersare often found in Norwegian cremationburials. One of thesescrapersalso has themagic runic inscription ‘linalaukaRa’,whichis interpretedas referring to phallic and fer-tility cult activities (Olsen & Schetelig1909). The scrapersare interpretedas toolsused for removal of animal skin from theflesh in a daily or ritual context, but it islikely that they were used for cutting upcorpsesprior to, or asa part of the cremationrituals. The bone scrapersare burnt on thefire, eitheralongwith the corpseor in ritualsafterwards. This is probably connectedwithnotions of pollution and purification, sincethe fire is an extremely commonapotropaicinstrument that may have warded off evilspirits (Barber 1990:385),or with taboo con-cepts connected with the removal of flesh;finally, the scrapersmay havebeengiven asa part of thegrave-goodsin the urn.

Few contextsin Norway aregoodenoughto illuminate such practices.John Barrett,however, discussesa cremation found atWinterslow in Britain, covered by an in-vertedurn and accompaniedby a small pileof humaneyebrowhairsfrom morethanoneindividual, along with a bronze razor. Thefuneralhasrequiredsomekind of mutilationof the human body (Barrett 1994:123).Whetherthe eyebrowhairs are from the de-ceasedor not, at leastone or severalof themournershave mutilated somepart of theirbodiesasa partof thedeathritual. Sacrificesof teeth,hair, blood or eyes,or tattooscan

be considered equivalent to self-sacrifice(Valeri 1985:355). Furthermore,after thissacrifice at Winterslow, it seemsthat theparticipantscarriednotionsof pollution thatprescribedthe razorto bedeposited.

Debrisfrom flint tools found in situ in cre-mationburialsis alsoof specialinterest.Thismay be explainedas redepositionsof earlierStone-Agesites,but anotherhypothesiscanbe put forward: flint tools havebeenusedinthefuneralritesto removethefleshof thede-ceasedin theIron Age.FromtheHippodromein Jerashin Jordan,Ina Kehrberg(1992)hasshownthat lithic technologyhasa continuityon flakedglassandpotterysherdtools in theLateRomanandByzantinePeriods(early2ndcenturyto mid 7th century).As long asflintdebrisis found in the graves,andknowledgeof lithic technologyis availablein otherpartsof theworld,onemayassumealithic continu-ity alsoin Norway.

Another aspect,pointed out by Lars ErikNarmo, is that charcoalmiles are often lo-catedclose to cemeteries.There is a cook-ing-pit field in the vicinity of the largestcemetery in Møre and Romsdal County(Narmo1996:95).The pits Narmoexcavatedwerefairly large,with diametersvarying be-tween 0.9 and 2.8 m (ibid.:88), big enoughfor cooking corpses,and most of them dateback to the Early Iron Age. In one of thecooking-pitsa knife wasalsofound, indicat-ing the removalof flesh(ibid.:90).

From a ritual point of view, cooking-pitsare not necessarilyusedsolely for cookingof corpses.Thereareseveralwaysof separ-ating the fleshfrom the bones.Fromthe eth-nographicrecordit is, for instance,reportedof corpses that are ‘scorched’, ‘toasted’,‘broiled’, ‘baked’ (Valeri 1985:388) or‘smoked’ (Yarrow 1881:167).Thesediffer-encesare,however,moredifficult to traceinthe archaeologicalrecord, and I have re-ferred to the domestictreatmentsin generalas ‘cooking’. The ritual use of blood invariousways is also a part of the domesticpreparationof the corpses,which may be re-flected in the fact that urns and cauldrons

48 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

may havefunctionedascontainersfor liquidsubstances.

Thereare somevariablesthat often occurin cremationburials.Birch bark, felt or fursof different animals have frequently beenfound during excavationsof cremationbur-ials (Schetelig 1912). I have argued thatbirch bark may have beenusedas urns fortransportationof the burnt bones(Oestigaard1998:121),which seemsplausible in somecases. But in other cremation burials, itseems that the corpse was intentionallywrappedbeforeit wasput on the fire; it hasbeencooked(or ‘toasted’or ‘baked’) insteadof burnt.Comparativeethnographicalstudiesindicatethe importanceof wrappingas wellas someof the eschatologicalconceptscon-nectedto the practice.As it sometimeshap-pens, the bones are not completely bare,there is still some flesh clinging to them.The wrapping thus purifies the body, givesthe deceaseda new attire, the living markthe end of one period in the ritual and thebeginningof anotheror they abolisha sinis-ter pastby giving the deceaseda new glori-fied body before entering the company ofhis ancestors(Hertz 1960:55).

At Eik in Søgne,Vest-Agder County, adoubleburial was found in 1923 (C 23256)dating to the Late Roman period (Stylegar1997a).Thebones,burntat varioustempera-turesand with cut marks(Holck 1987:277),were first wrappedin felt and thereafterinbear skin, and then placed in a ‘Vestland-cauldron’(Fig. 2) (Gjessing1925:44).

Per Holck notes that there is a generaltendency indicating a connection betweengrade of cremation, cut marks and grave-finds in the Iron Age. Most of the graveswith cut marks(6.7%of the graves,totalling72 graves)are burnt at a low temperature,andthedeceasedpersonsareleft with ‘poor’grave-goods(Holck 1987:178–180).This byno meansimplies that the deceasedwas oflow status,but that other rituals were pre-scribed for certain people; the rituals aremore important than the grave-goods(Gan-sum& Oestigaard1999).A noteworthyfea-ture in this regardis that cut marks on thebonesseemto be connectedto double bur-ials (Holck 1987:180). If one of the de-ceasedis sacrificedas part of the funeral,regardlessof sex, thereseemsto be empha-sis on the ritual setting where the corpses

Fig. 2. The ‘Vestland-cauldron’ from Eik in Søgne.Source:Drawing by Oda Fidjestøl in Stylegar(1997a:45).

HumanSacrifices 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

are preparedfor the god(s), rather than onthe deposition of valuable objects. Thisraisesthe questionof how, andwhich of thedeceased’ssocial statusesare expressedinthe funerals. Ifhumans are sacrificed asgrave-gifts(Hjørungdal1999:89),thesemor-tuary rituals probably had an importantstructuring function in the resurrectionandre-creationof thesociety.

THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OFURNS

Preparationof the deadasmealsindicatesthehumansacrificeof the deceased,althoughinsomecasesit is difficult to determinewhetherthe deadhavebeencookedor burnt. In parti-cular, when the boneshave been placed onbronzedishesor plates,the deadmay be in-terpretedasofferingsto the godsasgifts. Themealhasbeenpreparedandserved.

Fundamentalfor interpretationsof crema-tion burialsis an understandingof the mean-ing and the function of the urn as acontainerfor the burnt bonesin a socialandreligious context.An urn as an object usedfor cremationremainsis an ideologicalandintentionally transformed multivocal con-tainer with severalfunctions,characteristicsandproperties:functionally, the urn is trans-portableand thus representsalliances,rela-tionships and circles of acquaintances.Socially, it is an object signalling economicstatus,which may reflect social differentia-tion and hierarchies. Ritually and reli-giously, the urn is a charnel housefor theburnt bones,where cosmologicaland reli-gious ideas are expressed.Roman bronzejars used as urns are ideologically trans-formedcontainers,or containersusedsecon-darily as urns, i.e. they were originally potswhoseprimary function and useswere notthe sameas thoseof urns.Thesecontainersmay have been exchangedover great dis-tances before they were transformed intourns (Oestigaard1999), but they may alsohave representedthe place where the de-ceaseddied (ibid.).

Theproblemis: Whatdoesthe ideologicaltransformationof jars into urns represent?The containersare transformedfrom a pro-fane sphere into a sacred one. But theremight just be a minor changein the mean-ing, if there is a changeat all. The originalfunction of the Romanjars and disheswasas containersor plates for serving food orprepareddomestic products such as wine.This original meaningmayhavea continuityin one way, whereas local eschatologicaland cosmologicalconceptsare incorporatedin anotherway. These jars and dishesareurnsaswell asbeingusedfor the purposeofservingfood; they containpreparedhumansor blood for the gods.Robert Hertz arguedthat there might be a close tie betweenthesoul and the containerof the bonesas thespiritual substanceof the charnel house(Hertz 1960:60).Thusthe fleshandbonesofhumansare servedto the gods in someofthefinestfood containersthatexisted.

Based on the early vernacular texts inWales and Ireland, Miranda Green focuseson associationsof the life/death-giving as-pectsof cauldrons.They areassociatedwithliquids suchasbloodor othersubstances,re-lating deathand regenerationto eachother(Green1998). They are deliberatelyplacedin aquaticcontexts,next to wateror on mar-shy grounds(ibid.:70), and it is natural toask what kind of perishablematerials thecauldronsoncemay have held, and to lookfor burialsof cauldronsin funerarycontexts(ibid.:72). In Norway, more than one hun-dred ‘Vestland-cauldrons’ have been foundin a funerarycontextin the Late RomanandMigration periods(Hauken1984).Thus, theritual useof thesecauldronsemphasizesthesacrificial aspect, where humans are themostvaluablesacrificeto gods.

ICONOGRAPHYAND WRITTENSOURCESOF HUMAN SACRIFICESAND COOKING OF CORPSES

Human sacrificewas a commonoccurrencein the late paganperiod in North-Western

50 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

Europe (Davidson 1992). Similarly, thecooking of corpseswas a commonpractice,even in the Christian area.Different quali-ties have been connectedwith the variousdisposalor preparationmethodsin time andspace.The few scripturesand the iconogra-phy I give emphasisto may highlight thefact that the sacrificeof humans,eitherdeador alive, was an integral part of the ritualscenario.

Miranda Green (1998) refers to humansacrifice among the Germanic tribe of theCimbri, documentedin Strabo’sGeographi-ca. This text is probablyderivedfrom a losttext during the later secondand earlier firstcenturiesBC. Green writes that, accordingto Strabo, the ceremonyis ‘carried out byholy women,one of whom cuts the throatsof prisonersof war, catchingthe blood in alarge bronzecauldron,and her companionscut openthe bodiesto inspectthe entrails,inanact of divination’ (1998:66–67).

This kind of sacrificial practicemay havebeen depicted on the Gundestrupcauldron(Fig. 3). Although this depiction probably

refers to a myth, it is metaphoricallyex-pressedas an icon. Metaphorshaveontolo-gical significancein language,culture andthought (Tilley 1999:11). In ChristopherTilley’s discussionof Fredrik Barth’s studyof the Baktaman(Barth 1975),Tilley writesthat

. . . the materialmetaphorsat work in culturearenot entirely arbitrary. In the processof makingmetaphoricalconnectionsthere is always likelyto be an inherentconnectionbetweenform andmeaning (. . .) the concretesymbol’s objectivequalities and apparentsuitability to its actualmeaningarevital. (Tilley 1999:28)

Basedon the Gundestrupcauldron,it seemsplausiblethat humanshave beensacrificed,either by catchingthe blood in cauldronsorby preparingthem in other ways. Withoutan essenceof practice,suchdepictionswillnot makesenseto othersascultural or pub-lic symbols(Obeyesekere1981,1990).Thismight be designatedas the ‘metaphorsofthe grave’; structuringprinciples in cosmosand society are incorporatedinto the deathsphere(Goldhahn1999:164).

The raw, the cookedor the burnt humans,or the tripartition classification of modesof preparationof the corpse,can be seenas a variant of Dumezil’s (1958) protoIndo-Europeanclassification.In the Germa-nic or the Celtic tradition there is evidenceof a patternof ‘The Threefold Death’. Theancient Gaels made offerings to the threegodsEsus,TaranisandTeutatesby recourseto hanging, burning and drowning, respec-tively, a patternreplicatedin the Germanicpunishmentof hanging,stabbinganddrown-ing (Mallory 1989:139).The best evidenceis confined to the westernmostIndo-Euro-peans,but there is someadditional supportthat threefoldsacrificesmay havebeenmorewidespread(ibid.). This strengthensthe hy-pothesis that the mode of preparation orbody-disposalmethodsof the deceasedareconnectedto different qualities associatedwith personifiedgods.

Tacitus (AD 69) mentionsafter a battle

Fig. 3. Sacrificial scene from the Gundestrupcauldron.Drawing by the author.

HumanSacrifices 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

that ‘they searchedfor the body of the fallencommander,Orfidus, and burnt it with duesolemnity. Of the other dead, a few wereburiedby their relatives,thegreatmasswereleft lying on the ground’ (Tacitus2, 45, 84–85). Oneimportantfeatureto be emphasizedhere is that thereare qualitative differencesbetweenthe variousbody-disposalmethods,and that cremationwas the most valued(orconnectedto a special status in so far asonly thecommanderwascremated).

In Procopius, History of the Wars, VI.XV, (23–25), there are referencesto thesacrificial practiceof the inhabitantsof theThule. The most noble sacrifices are hu-mans,preferably the first humanthey havetakencaptive in war, sacrificednot only onaltarsbut alsoby hangingin treesor throw-ing amongthorns. In Jordanesit is writtenthat the Gothsalwaysplacatedthe god Marswith the most savagerites, for the deathofthe prisonersbecamehis sacrifice,becausethey thought that the prince of war shouldbe placatedin a suitable fashion with thesheddingof human blood (Hagberg 1967:68). There is an ‘immanent materiality’

in written sources,which may strengthenour conceptualapparatusandexpandour un-derstanding of our process of inferences(Norr 1998:13).

A text which illuminates a divine endo-cannibalisticpracticeis TheLay of Fafnir inThe Poetic Edda. Fafnir often appearsas adragon,althoughhe is thesonof andbrotherof menskilled in magicwho areableto castoff their slough (Hultkrantz 1992). AfterSigurdkilled Fafnir, a nuthatchsaid: ‘Theresits Sigurd, splatteredwith blood, roastingFafnir’s heart on a spit; the destroyer ofrings would seemwise to me if he were toeat the shining life-muscle’ (Larrington1996:163).

A distinction has to be made betweenmembersof the group and non-membersofthe group. Since the god(s) acceptednon-membersof the group as sacrifices,I wouldalsoexpecta similar worshipwhenmemberswithin the group die. A sacrificeof the de-ceasedasan internalmemberof thegroupisprobably valued differently than enemiesthat aresacrificedraw. Funeralsredefineso-cial relationshipsas a part of intergenera-

Fig. 4. Thesacrificeof Domalde.Source:Snorre(1995:25).

52 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

tional transmissonsof rights, duties andpowers (Strathern1981:206),and then theoffering mustbe a symbolof theoutcomeofthesacrifice.

The importanceof the sacrificial practice,wherehumansweregiven to the gods,is notthat the gods were ‘blood-thirsty’, but thenotion that offerings of humanswhere ofvalue to the gods.God is a concept,a typeor a rule for humanaction, and therefore,agodcannotbeefficaciouswithout humanac-tionsandthehumanrecognitionof thegod’sstatus(Valeri 1985:103).The result of thesacrificemust evoke the sacrifieras well asthe deity (ibid.:49). ‘Thus it is possibleto

rank offerings in termsof their value to thesacrifier; this value ultimately dependsonthe offering’s own body. The resultinghier-archy includesthe sacrifier’s body. And, infact, if the offering is the symbol of thesacrifier’ (ibid.). Humansacrificescannotbeperformed on an individual basis, but re-quire a benefit for the collective society(ibid.), and therefore sacrifices are effica-ciousin the legitimacyandthemanifestationof thesocialorderandhierarchy.

This is illuminated in Adam of Bremen’saccountof the sacrificesin Uppsalaof bothhumans and animals every ninth year.Everyone is obliged to participate or sendcontributionsto the offering; the Christiansare no exception (Adam Bremensis1993:IV, 27). The sacrificesare a collective act.According to Adam of Bremen, if there ishungeror plague,humansacrificesaremadeto Tor, and offerings are made to Odin ifthere is a war (ibid.). Snorre(1995) writesthat, in Uppsala the king Domalde wassacrificed(Fig. 4) by his chieftainsafter theharvest failed for the third year (ibid.:25).This is an expiationsacrifice.Therearesev-eral sourcesindicating that sons are sacri-ficed during wars.SaxoGrammaticus(1985)refers to a war where the Norwegian kingHakon sacrificed his two sons to win thebattle(Fig. 5) (ibid.:387–388),which hedid.

Foreign authors observing death ritualsdid not recognize or pay attention to theinternal meaningof and differencesamongsacrifices.In the Guter sagafrom Gotland,written down before AD 1285, a strikingnote has been made which may be inter-pretedas a continuity of ancientcremationpractices.As a part of the very old paganrituals andgods,peoplesacrificedtheir sons,daughters,cattle and food, and the greatestsacrifice was that of humans. Linguisticsourcesindicate that the Old Norse wordfor cooking-pitor ‘cooking’ is seyDir , mean-ing those who sacrificed and by cookingprepared the sacred meals, and thus, thecooking-pits were markers of cult activitywhere food or meat was preparedand con-

Fig. 5. Hakon sacrificeshis sons.Source:SaxoGrammaticus(1985:387).

HumanSacrifices 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

sumedin honour of the gods.Furthermore,according to written sourcesand inscrip-tions, the institution associatedwith thecooking-pit fields has been known as ‘thecomradesof cooking’, which means‘thosewho make an offering together’ (Narmo1996:92). The interpretationsof the sagahavefocusedon holy mealsasa part of theancestorworshipin thevicinity of thegrave-yards.This may be so, but consideringthesize of someof the cooking-pits,they mayrepresentcremationswherethe deceasedarecooked. In this regard, the institution ‘thecomradesof cooking’ may representcertainkinship units performing obsequies.More-over, since a specific term has been asso-ciated with these participants, this mayindicate a long tradition of a funeral prac-tice, somethingthat is in accordancewiththe archaeologicalmaterial.Of specialinter-est, too, is the location of the cooking-pitfieldscloseto cemeteries.

From the Medieval period there is ampleevidence of the cooking of corpses.Themostnobleandhonourablepracticewasmosteutonicus. Royal personswere often quar-teredand cookedin order to be transportedeitherbackhomeor to Jerusalemas the lastpilgrimage (Stylegar 1997b:64). Christianghosts were cooked, and from Greenlandthere are indicationsof this practice.Once,somehunterspassedby a housewhere twopersonshaddied of hunger.Oneof the hun-ters becamecompletelyinsane,and anothercooked the dead bodies and brought thebones to a Christian cemetery (Nedkvitne1997:102). In general, those who werecooked belongedto a marginal group, re-gardlessof whether they had high or lowstatus.

SvanteNorr (1998:29)arguesthat, from atheoreticalpoint of view, the principles forusing ethnographicand historical analogiesin archaeologicalexplanationare fundamen-tally the same.An analogy is an analogy.Both sourcesof knowledgeare productsoftranslationor of a merging of hermeneutichorizons of understanding.Some general

principles can be deducedthat do not con-tradict thearchaeologicalmaterial:

— Sacrificeof both living anddeadhumanswasa commonpractice.— Sacrificeswere centredon the fire andthe hearth,and thus the funeral pyre can beincluded in these heat-mediatedfood pre-parations.— Food symbolism was connectedto thesacrificeof humans.

The internalmeaningof the symbolismcon-nectedto thebody-preparation,asgifts to thegods,is difficult to grasp.But it is possibletoilluminatesomegeneralfeaturesconnectedtothefire andthehousehold,andthesefeatureswere emphasizedand incorporatedinto thereproductionof thesocialorder.

FOOD FOR THE LIVING AND THEDEAD

In his book The Raw and the Cooked,Claude Levi-Strauss has elaborated andstudiedthe symbolicdimensionsof transfor-mations from raw to cooked. The trans-formation from raw to cooked cannotbe interpreted solely as a transition from‘nature’ to ‘culture’, but through it and bymeansof it the humanstatecan be defined(Levi-Strauss1964:164).Cooking is an actof transformationthat involves all parts ofsociety, from production, distribution, andpreparation, through cooking to the finalphaseof disposal(Goody 1982:44–48).Thephaseof preparationof a meal is often along and time-consumingprocess.In thisinterval different rituals may be inter-woven. Furthermore,preparationof food isusuallya femaleactivity, but if incorporatedin deathrituals, the genderrolescanbe ma-nipulated and challenged,and thereby thesocial structures in the society (Bloch1982).

Hearth-centredactivities and the symbolof the house are important features in aritual approach.Hearth-centredactivities areusually associated with women (Haland

54 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

1995, 1997), but when funeral rituals areconnectedto the hearth, there might be adiscoursewhere the categories‘man’ and‘woman’ are manipulated or challengedwithin the production and the reproductionof notions of personhood and society(Moore 1994:51). The source of the sym-bolic power of the housedoesnot resideinthe houseasan isolatedunit, but in multipleconnectionsbetweenthe houseand the peo-ple who live there (Carsten& Hugh-Jones1995:44).The humans’communicationwiththe ancestorsandgodsis often connectedinoneway or anotherto the hearth(e.g.Bloch1995:76). But when death is incorporatedinto this sphere,it allows the humansto be-comea part of the gods,andthusthe societywill havea godly legitimacy.

Funeral practicesrevitalize what is cul-turally conceivedto be mostessentialto thereproductionof the social order (Bloch &Parry 1982:7). The rituals tend to acquiremoral connotations,where the moral evilhas to be reprobatedand combated(Hocart1954:96). The importanceof death as thecontextof socialelaborationandsocialcrea-tion is basedon encompassingprinciplesofopposition and exchange (Holmberg1989:190).The resurrectionof the deceasedasthe final mealofferedto the godsis a sa-crifice wherebythe gods’ consumptionof itlegitimatesthe establishmentof the new so-cial order. Thus the living person’sgainingpossessionof the dead person’s property(Goody 1962:311)is legally sanctionedbythe gods when they accept the gift in thepresenceof both the descendantsas mour-nersandthe restof thesociety.

The hearth symbolism used in deathrituals may havea significantrole in society.Levi-Strauss stressedseveral points aboutthe house;(1) continuity occursthroughdes-cent, i.e. downwardsthroughthe inheritanceof namesand property, (2) hierarchicalor-deringis arrangedaccordingto birth andan-cestorsas basicunits in the society,and (3)‘The dialecticof filiation andresidence’is acommon feature in house-basedsocieties

(Carsten1995:105).Thus deathis an incor-poratedpart of the household,but still stig-matized.The hearthis the centralimageandfocal point in the house,namely the inside(Haland 1997:381). This ambiguity is ex-pressed in the cooking-pits used for thecookingof thedead.

Cooking-pitsfor funeralrites areoften lo-catedoutsidethe house,thoughsomeof therites may have been performed inside thehouse.This bearswitnessto notionsof pur-ity and impurity (Douglas1966, 1975), andan inside–outside dichotomy determiningwhere the obsequieswere supposedto becarried out. Cooking-pits in the vicinity ofthe graveyardsmay strengthenthis hypoth-esis. Furthermore, the cooking-pit in themoundat Sandein Gloppenis of specialin-terest as it contained only fire-crackedstones,althoughtherehadneverbeenfire inthis pit. Thus the fire-crackedstoneswereprobably transported to the mound andthereafterburied there. If, for somereasonor another,the cooking of the deceasedhadtaken place in the house,the hearthwouldhave become impure, and therefore thestoneswould haveto bemoved.

CONCLUSION

A new classificationfocusingon funeralsassacrifices,where the deceasedis preparedfor the gods,enablesus to illuminate someof the eschatologicalconceptsbehind theobsequiesand the society in which they areperformed. The distinction between thosethat are sacrificedraw, cooked or burnt isone of the ways that contemporarysocietieshave distinguishedtheir own people. Thefuneral is probably one of the most impor-tant rituals in a society that allows for theexpressionof variousidentities.The descen-dants’ mortuary feasts and rituals recreatethe elementarystructureof the societyof theliving. Human sacrifice is a part of thefuneral; the deceasedbecomesa meanstoanotherend.

HumanSacrifices 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I expressmy gratitudeto Randi Haland andSiv Kristoffersenfor invaluablediscussionsand comments.I also extendmy thankstoKnut Andreas Bergsvik, Frans-ArneStyle-gar, Morten Hanisch,EspenKutscheraandGahr Smith-Gahrsenfor suggestions,ideasandhelpwith literature.

REFERENCES

Adam Bremensis.1993. Beretningenom Ham-burgs stift, erkebiskopenesbedrifter og øyri-kenei Norden.Fra latin, medinnledning,noterog register ved Bjørg TosterudDanielsenogAnne Katrine Frihagen. Aschehougs& Co.Oslo.

Barber,P. 1990.Cremation.J. Indo-Eur. Studies18, 379–388.

Barth,F. 1975.Ritual andKnowledgeAmongtheBaktaman. Yale University Press.New Haven.

Barley, N. 1995.Dancingon the Grave. Abacus.London.

Barrett, J. 1994. Fragmentsfrom Antiquity. AnArchaeology of Social Life in Britain,2900Y1200BC. Blackwell. Oxford.

Bloch, M. 1982. Death, women and power. InBloch, M. & Parry, J. (eds.), Death andRegeneration of Life, 211–230. CambridgeUniversity Press.Cambridge.

Bloch, M. 1995. The resurrectionof the houseamongst the Zafimaniry of Madagascar.InCarsten,J. & Hugh-Jones,S. (eds.),About theHouse.Levi-Straussand Beyond, 69–83.Cam-bridgeUniversity Press.Cambridge.

Bloch, M. & Parry, J. 1982. Introduction: deathand the regenerationof life. In Bloch, M. &Parry, J. (eds.), Death and RegenerationofLife, 1–44.CambridgeUniversity Press.Cam-bridge.

Carsten, J. 1995. Houses in Langkawi: stablestructuresor mobile homes?In Carsten,J. &Hugh-Jones,S. (eds.),About the House.Levi-Strauss and Beyond, 105–128. CambridgeUniversity Press.Cambridge.

Carsten,J. & Hugh-Jones,S. 1995. Introduction.In Carsten,J. & Hugh-Jones,S. (eds.),Aboutthe House. Levi-Strauss and Beyond, 1–46.CambridgeUniversity Press.Cambridge.

Christensen, A. E. 1992. Gravleggingen. InChristensen,A. E., Ingstad,A. S. & Myhre,B. (eds.), Osebergdronningensgrav, 80–84.Chr. SchibstedsForlagA/S, Oslo.

Davidson,H. E. 1992. Human sacrificesin theLatePaganPeriodin North-WesternEurope.InCarver,M. O. H. (ed.),TheAgeof SuttonHoo.TheSeventhCenturyin North-WesternEurope,331–340.The Boydell Press,Rochester.

Douglas,M. 1966.Purity andDanger.Routledge.Douglas,M. 1975.Implicit Meanings.Routledge.Dumezil,G. 1958.L’IdeologieTripartie desIndo-

Europeens. Latomus,Brussels.Gansum,T. & Oestigaard,T. 1999.En haugmed

ritualer — Haugarog Rikssamlingen.Vestfold-minnet, 1998/1999;74–99. Vestfold Historie-lag. Tønsberg.

Gjessing,H. 1925.Vestagderi forhistorisktid. InNorske Bygder. Vest-Agder I, 33–75. JohnGriegsForlag.Bergen.

Giddens,A. 1984. The Constitution of Society:Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cam-bridge,Polity Press.

Goldhahn,J.1999.Sagaholm—Hallristningar oggravritual. Studia ArchaeologicaUniversitatisUmensis11. Jonkopings Lans MuseumsAr-keologiskaRapportserie41. Jonkoping.

Goody,J. 1962.Death,Property and the Ances-tors. StanfordUniversity Press,California.

Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class.CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.

Green, M. J. 1998. Vessels of death: sacredcauldrons in archaeology and myth. TheAntiquariesJournal 78, 63–84.

Haland,R. 1995.Sedentism,cultivationandplantdomesticationin the Holocene Middle PlantRegion.J. Field Arch 22, 157–174.

Haland, R. 1997. Emergenceof sedentism:newways of living, new ways of symbolising.Antiquity 71, 374–85.

Hagberg, U. E. 1967. The Archaeology ofSkedemoseII . Almquvist & Wiksell, Stock-holm.

Hauken,A. D. 1984. Vestlandskittlar.En studieav en provinsialromerskimportgruppi Norge.[Publisher?],Bergen.

Hertz,R. 1960[1909].DeathandtheRight Hand.Cohen& West,Aberdeen.[1909].

Hjørungdal,T. 1999.Kremeringoch dekonstruk-tion/rekonstruktionav identitet.Vilka ar repre-senteradei brandgravermedVestlandskittel?InCaesar,C. et al. (eds.),Han Hon Den Det. Att

56 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

integrera genusoch kon i arkeologi, 81–95.University of Lund. Institute of Archaeology.ReportseriesNo. 65, Lund.

Hocart, A. M. 1927. Kingship. ClarendonPress,Oxford. Referencein Valeri 1985.

Hocart,A. M. 1954.SocialOrigins. Watts& Co,London.

Holck, P. 1987. Cremated Bones. A medical-anthropologicalstudyof archaeologicalmateri-al on crematedburials.Antropologiskeskrifternr. 1, AnatomiskInstitutt, Universiteteti Oslo,Oslo.

Holmberg, D. 1989. Order in Paradox. MotilalBanarsidass.Cornell University Press, NewYork.

Hubert, H. & Mauss, M. 1964. Sacrifice: ItsNature and Function. The University ofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Hultkrantz, A. 1992. Hvem er hvem i norrønmytologi. Arnkrone,Copenhagen.

Kaliff, A. 1992a. Brandgravskickoch forestal-lningsvarld. OccasionalPapersin Archaeology4, Uppsala.

Kaliff, A. 1992b.En religionsarkeologisksyn pagravar.Tor, 24, 124–143.Uppsala.

Kaliff, A. 1995a.Brabygden— myt och historia.In Kaliff, A. (ed.),Skenetfran det forflutna —arkeologiog myter i en bronsalderbygd, 7–29.Riksantikvariea¨mbetet,Linkøping.

Kaliff, A. 1995b.Religionen— en viktig del avbronsalderenssamhellale.In Kaliff, A. (ed.),Skenetfran det forflutna-arkeologiog myter ien bronsalderbygd, 81–95. Riksantikvariea¨m-betet,Linkøping.

Kaliff, A. 1997. Grav och kultplass. Aun 24.Uppsala.

Kaliff, A. 1998. Grave structures and altars:archaeologicaltracesof Bronze Age eschato-logical conceptions.Eur. J. Arch 1, 177–198.

Kehrberg,I. 1992.Flakedglassandpotterysherdtoolsof theLateRomanandByzantineperiodsfrom the Hippodromeof Jerash.Extrait de larevueSyria tomeLXIX, 1992. Fascicules3–4,450–464.Librairie OrientalistePaullGeuthner,Paris.

Larrington, C. 1996. The Poetic Edda. World’sClassics.Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Levi-Strauss,C. 1964.TheRaw and the Cooked.Pimlico, London.

Loisy, A. F. 1920. Essai historique sur lesacrifice. E. Nourry, Paris.

Lund Hansen,U. 1995.Himlingøje — Seland—

Europa. Det kongeligeNordiske Oldskriftsel-skab,Copenhagen.

Mallory, J. P. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans.ThamesandHudson,London.

Mauss,M. 1990[1925]. TheGift. Routledge.McKeithen, J. E. 1979. The Risalah of Ibn

Fadlan: An AnnotatedTranslationwith Intro-duction. IndianaUniversity. University Micro-films International,London.

Miller, D. 1998. Why some things matter. InMiller, D. (ed.), Material Cultures.Why SomeThingsMatter, 3–21.UCL Press,London.

Moore,H. 1994.A Passionfor Difference.PolityPress,Cambridge.

Narmo,L. E. 1996.‘KokekameratenepaLeikvin’.Kult og kokegroper.Viking LIX, 79–100.NorskArkeologiskSelskap,Oslo.

Nedkvitne, A. 1997. Møte med dødeni norrønmiddelalder. En mentalitetshistorisk studie.CappelenAkademiskForlag,Oslo.

Norr, S. 1998. To Redeand to Rown. Opia 17,Uppsala,Sweden.

Obeyesekere,G. 1981. Medusa’s Hair. TheUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago andLondon.

Obeyesekere,G. 1990. The Work of Culture.Symbolic Transformation in Psychoanalysisand Anthropology. The University of ChicagoPress,ChicagoandLondon.

Oestigaard,T. 1998. The Deceased’sLife CycleRituals: PresentCremationBurials for Inter-pretationsof thePast.An EthnoarchaeologicalStudyof Funeral Practicesin Nepal. Unpubl.MA-thesis, Departmentof Archaeology,Uni-versity of Bergen,Bergen.

Oestigaard,T. 1999. Cremationsas transforma-tions: when the dual cultural hypothesiswascrematedand carried away in urns. Eur. J.Arch. 2, 345–364.

Olsen,M. & Schetelig,H. 1909.En indskrift medældre runer fra Fløkstad i Nordhordaland.BergenMuseumsArbok 1909,No. 7:3–44.

Roesdahl,E. 1993. Vikingernesverden. Gylden-dal, Copenhagen.

SaxoGrammaticus. Translatedby WienkelHorn.Reprintedin 1985. PeterAsschenfeldt’sBog-klubb, Copenhagen.

Schetelig, H. 1912. Vestlandske graver frajernalderen. Bergens Museums skrifter. Nyrække.Bd. II. No. I. A/S John Griegs Bok-trykkeri, Bergen.

Skre, D. 1998. Herredømmet. Bosetning og

HumanSacrifices 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014

besittelse pa Romerike 200–1350 e. Kr.Acta Humaniora32, University of Oslo,Oslo.

Snorre Sturluson:Norgeskongesagaer. Vol. 1.Translatedby K.-W. Hansen,J. Larsen& DyreVaa. Reprintedin 1995.LibriArte, Oslo.

Strathern, A. 1981. Death as exchange: twoMelanesian cases. In Humphreys, S. C. &King, H. (eds.),Mortality andImmortality: TheAnthropologyand Archaeologyof Death, 205–224.AcademicPress,London.

Stylegar,F. A. 1997a.To romertids dobbeltbe-gravelser i langhaug fra Eig i Søgne. Varbarndoms have — Arbok 1997 Vest-AgderFylkesmuseum, 39–48.Kristiansand.

Stylegar,F. A. 1997b.Mos Teutonicus.OmkringHalvdanSvartesdødog begravelse.Viking LX,59–67.Oslo.

Tacitus, AD 76. The Histories. In the World’s

Classics.Translatedby W. H. Fyfe. OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford 1997.

Tilley, C. 1999.Metaphorand Material Culture.Blackwell, Oxford.

Universitetets Oldsaksamling hovedkatalogen-dokumentasjonsprosjektet.

Valeri, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice.Ritualand Societyin AncientHawaii. The UniversityPressof Chicago,Chicago.

Yarrow, H. C. 1881.A further contributionto thestudy of mortuary customs of the NorthAmerican Indians.First Annual Report of theBureau of Ethnology to the Secretaryof theSmithsonianInstitution, 1879–1880, 91–203.GovernmentPrinting, Washington.

Zimmerman,F. 1982.TheJungleand the Aromaof Meats. University of California Press,Berkeley.

58 Terje Oestigaard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

SOA

S, U

nive

rsity

of

Lon

don]

at 0

7:29

31

Janu

ary

2014