den do chronological dating of the viking age ship burials at oseberg, gokstad and tune, norway

8/8/2019 Den Do Chronological Dating of the Viking Age Ship Burials at Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune, Norway

1/9

NotesDendrochronological dating ofthe Viking Age ship

burials at Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune, NorwayN I E L S B O N D E & A R N E E M I L C H R I S T E N S E N *

Dendrochronology now provides a date, exact nearly to the year, for three Viking Ageburial mounds ofspecial importance for chronology in Scandinavia and across early

medieval northern Europe. Their dating used to depend on the style ofthe carved woodenartefacts in the grave goods; now the grave-goods are exactly and independently dated bythe tree-rings, those same links will provide dating bridges across the Viking world.

The Norwegian ship-burials and their datingThe dating of the important finds in the burialmounds at Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune in southeastNorway ( F I G U R E 1), now on display in the VikingShip Museum in Oslo, is central to ou runderstanding of Viking Age chronology and styUsticdevelopment In particular the Oseberg find, with itscontent of unique carved wooden items, sutpasses allother single finds from the Viking period.T he Gokstad and Oseberg sites are situated

in the county of Vestfold on the western sideof the Fiord of Oslo. The two sites wereexcavated in 1880 and 1904 respectively. TheTune site is situated on the eastern side of thesame fiord in the county of 0stfold and wasexcavated s early s 1867. I t was a Sensationat the time, and although the ships in theGokstad and Oseberg mounds clearly surpassit , it was the first substantial archaeologicalevidence of a ship used by the Vikings.

FIGURE 1. M ap of southern Scandinavia showing the area around the Fiord of Oslo with the location ofthesites indicated, and the geographical reference zones for oak master chronologies in the region.

\:Denmark, 2: Scania, 3: West Gtland.* Niels Bonde, National Museum of Denmark, National Science Research Unit, Dendrochronology, N y Vestergade 11 ,DK-1471 Copenhagen K , Denmark. Arne Emil Christensen, Viking Ship Museum, University Museum of NationalAntiquities, Frederiks gate 2, N -0164 Oslo, Norway.A N T I Q U I T Y 6 7 ( 1 9 9 3 ) : 575-83


2/9

576 NOTESIn all three cases we are dealing withburials where the dead lay in a grave chamberconstructed of wo od and placed in a shipalong with the grave goods, the whole coveredby a mound.Until now the dating of the three Norwegian

ship burials has been largely based onevaluations of the decorated wooden artefactsrecovered during the excavations.Viking Age art can be div ided up intoseveral stylistic periods, which replace andoverlap each other throughout the threecenturies of the Viking Age. They are all basedon the Nordic animal style which wasinspired by western European, in particularIrish, ornamenta t ion . The result was anindependent and original Nordic style. Thetraditionally accepted sequence of Viking Agestyles begins with the 'Oseberg Style' aroundA D 800, continuing with the 'Borre Style',named after another important mound find inthe county of Vestfold. This was followed bythe 'Jellinge style', named after a silver cupfound in a D anish mound in Jutland, dated tothe second half of the lOth Century. The styleof what is regarded s late Viking art has beengiven the name 'Ringerike Style', after a groupof decorated stones in Norway, and ends withthe 'Urnes Style' from the late llth and early12th centuries, which is named after an earlywooden church in western Norway. This isonly an extremely brief summary of thechronological sequence of Viking art styles.The definition of the different periods, oftenwith sub-divisions, and their dating are underconstant debate, and differ according to thebackground and nationality of the contributor(Schetelig 1920; Wilson & Klint-Jensen 1966;Karlsson 1983; Roesdahl & Wilson 1992).The stylistic analyses of items from thesefinds have been carried out first and foremostby the Norwegian archaeologist HaakonShetelig. As a young man he took part in theexcavation of Oseberg and later played animportant role in the publication of the find,s well s contributing extensively to theinternational discussion about the chronologyof Viking art.

In publ ish ing the wooden ar te fac ts fromOseberg, Shetelig also dealt with the Gokstadfind s well s the metal artefacts from bothGokstad and Borre. He concluded that whathe called the Early Oseberg Style began

around AD 800, whilst his Later O seberg Stylewas fixed at aro und the midd le of the 9thCentury. He dated the Borre Style in theGokstad and Borre f inds to after AD 900(Schetelig 1920). The leader of the excavationof the Gokstad mound, Nicolay Nicolaysen,had earlier dated the burial to c. AD 900(Nicolaysen 1882) (FlGURE 2). In a lecture tothe Nordic Archaeological Meeting inHelsinki in 1925, Shetelig later changed hisviews with regard to the Oseberg find (FlGURE3). Based on analysis of the Irish artefacts inthe find he revised the date for the start of theEarly Oseberg Style to between AD 820 and830 (Shetelig 1926), which for himconsequently meant that the burial at Oseberghad to be dated to AD 850 or later. This datewas subsequently , and still is, general lyaccepted (Roesdahl & Wilson 1992).In 1917 Shetelig also published the Tuneship-burial. A few fragments of wood carved inthe Borre style, possibly from a saddle, werethe only datable artefacts. Shetelig concludedthat the Tune burial was contemporary withthat at Gokstad (Schetelig 1917).After the reconstru ction of the Go kstadmo und in 1930, B j0rn Hougen , later Professorof Archaeology in Oslo, again took up thediscuss ion concerning its age. Using sevidence some bronze strap-mounts that werefound during the reconst ruc t ion work, ofwhich one was decorated in a pure version ofJel l inge Style , Hougen concluded that thegrave was from 'very early in the lOthCentury' (Hougen 1934).Other methods have also been employed inthe efforts to date these finds. In 1959 theRadiological Dating Laboratory in Trondheimcarried out the radiocarbon dating of a sampleof oak wood from th e grave chamber in theOseberg ship. The result in radiocarbon yearswas 119060 b.p. (T-37) (Nydal 1959), givinga calibrated age of AD 880, or with oneStandard deviat ion AD 780-960 (Stuiver &Pearson 1993).Results of recent archaeological investi-gations carried out in Ribe, Denmark (Jensen1991), indicate that a revision of thechronology of early Viking art styles isnecessary; the whole chronology possiblyneeds to be moved further back in time. Thusthe precis e dating of these key No rwe gianfinds is more pressing than ever.


3/9

NOTES 577

FIGURE 2. The Gokstad ship photographed during the excavation in 1880. The gables ofthe burialchamber can be seen in the middle ofthe ship. About 60-70% ofthe ship was found to be preservedChnker-built in oak, the ship is 23.2 m lang, up to 5.2 m broad with a mast and sail, side-rudder and 16pairs ofoars. (Photo: University Museum of National Antiquities, Oslo, Norway.)


4/9

578 NOTES

F IGURE 3. The Osebergship in the Viking ShipMuseum. About 90% ofthe ship is preserved.Clinker-built in oak, theship is 21.85 m lang,up to 5.1 m broad witha mast and sail, side-rudder and 15 pairs ofoars. (Photo: UniversityMuseum of NationalAntiquities, Oslo,Norway.)

Dendrochronology of the ship-burialsWithin recent decades dendrochronology hasestablished itself s one of the mostimportant scientific dating methods innorthwest European archaeology (for ageneral introduction to the method seeBaillie 1982). I t offers th e archaeologist andhistorian an exact answer to the mostimportant question posed in connection withan archaeological f ind - how old is it? Theresult is often so precise that everyrecognized theory which conflicts with it isimmediately discredited (Bonde &Christensen 1982; Christiansen 1982).During the course of the 1980s, severalmajor master chronologies have been built upfor oak (Quercus sp.) in southern Scandinavia,covering the period f rom the present day backto the Iron Age. At present there is nochronology for oak in Norway, but work is inprogress. Preliminary investigations of theannual rings of living trees in southernN o r w a y show that it is possible to match aregional chronology fo r oak f rom th e coastalregions around the Kattegat with masterchronologies f r o m Denmark and southernSweden (Kjeld Christensen pers. comm.). Thismeans that under favourable circumstances a' f loat ing ' chronology, based on oak materialf r om the southern Norwegian mixed f o r e s tregion, can be dated using one o r more of the

master chronologies which already exist fo rthe areas around the Kattegat.As the result of co-operation between theUniversity Museum o f National Antiquities inOslo and the National Museum o f Denmark, aseries of wood samples have been removedf rom th e Oseberg, Gokstad and Tune finds fo rthe purposes of dendrochronological dating.The procedure in the investigation was first toproduce a ' f loating' regional chronology fo rthe Oslo Fiord area, based o n samples f r o mthe three sites. Attempts were then made tomatch this with existing master chronologiesfo r southern Sweden (Bartholin 1985; Brthen1982) and Denmark.Selection of samplesThe three localities o f Oseberg, Goks tad andTune lie between 20 and 50 km apart. We canassume that climatic conditions were more orless uni fo rm over the whole area around thesites. When choosing items for dating,emphasis was t h e r e f o r e placed on samplesf rom trees which w o u l d be expected to havebeen fel led close to the site of end use, i.e. theburial mounds. In all three cases, samplesf r o m the ships themselves were avoided sthere is always some doubt s to the origin o ftimber which has gone into the building of aship. For example, dendrochronologicalinvestigations o f samples f rom Wreck 2 f rom


5/9

NOTES 579th e f a m o u s S k u l d e l e v f ind near R o s k i l d e ,Denmark , showed that th e ship was built o ft imber from trees which had grown in the areaa r oun d D ub l i n , I r e lan d (B on de & C r u m l i n -Pedersen 1990).The inves t iga t ion concent ra ted o n t i mberwhich ha d been used in bu i ld i n g the gravec h a m b e r s at the th ree s i tes . The oak t reeswhich p r oduc ed th e t imber for the chambersa t Oseberg , Go ks ta d and Tune were sure lyfelled for the p ur p os e of building the bur ia lchambers; th e felling dates fo r these t imberswill therefore cor respond to the ages of thebur i a l s . Th er e w o u l d not have been anysignificant storage or seasoning pe riod for thet imber after felling, s it was normal to usea nd w o r k t im b e r in the f resh , newly fel ledstate. Newly cut trees are m uch easier to workw i th h an d- too l s , ax es , w edg es and so on.Presumably we only have to take into a ccountth e t ime it t ook to transport th e t imber fromthe felling s ite to the bur ial m ou nd, tradition-ally a m atter of months, not years, and in thisinvestigation we might be talking about weeksor maybe even days.The grave chamb ers were never m eant to beseen . In Oseberg and Goks tad they wereprimitively built. They were made of roughlycleft and hewn planks and posts and placedlike a tent in the centre of the ships . Theyw e r e m o r e o r less intact , i f we ignore the

d a m a ge done when the graves were brokeninto, prob ably already in the Viking perio d.The Oseberg grave cham ber is now stored atthe Viking Ship Museum in Oslo (FlGURE 4)and the mater ial is extremely well preserved ,a l th oug h i t h as n eve r un d er g o n e an yex ten s i ve c on s e r va t i on t r ea tmen t in anym odern sense of the word . Only the surface ofthe timb er has been occasionally treated withlinseed oil. The cham ber wa s built com pletelyof oak. Twelve sam ples were taken, tw o fromthe gables , one f r o m a ver t ical pos t whichbore the r idge pole and nine f r o m p l a n k swhich probably come from th e roof .The Gokstad grave chamber is on display atthe Viking Ship Museum (FlGURE 5) and thet im ber i s a l so very wel l p res erv ed . I t hasprobably undergone the same treatm ent s th et imber f rom Oseberg. The chamber was builtof t i m b e r f r o m both o a k a nd pine. F o u rs amp les w er e t aken , a ll o a k , one o f whichprobab ly der ives f rom th e roof of the gravechamber and three from the gable nearest theship's mas t .The grave chamber in the Tune ship wasonly rudim entarily preserved and the m aterialis a l s o s to r ed in the Viking Ship M u s e u m(F lGURE 6). Only f o u r small pieces of oakt imber from th e chamber itself were saved. Itseems to be of a totally different constructionf rom those at Goks tad and Oseberg. It has a

FlGURE 4. The Oseberggrave chamber in theexhibition in the VikingShip Museum.Approximate height:3.25 m. (Photo:University Museum ofNational Antiquities,Oslo, Norway.)


6/9

580 NOTES

FlGURE 5. The Gokstadgrave chamber in theexhibition in the VikingShip Museum.Approximate height:2.8 m. (Photo:University Museum ofNational Antiquities,Oslo, Norway.)

square chamber with walls made of radicallysplit planks and a flat roof, showing closeraff in i t ies to other Scandinavian chambergraves from the tenth Century. Two sampleswere taken, both of which probably camefrom the vertical wall of the chamber.A ll of the samples were taken s cros s -sections by sawing through the timber pieces.

FlGURE 6. The Tuneship in the exhibitionin the Viking ShipMuseum. About 50% ofthe ship is preserved.Clinker-built in oakwith cross-beams andrudder ofpine, the shipwas originally about 20m lang, up to 4.3 mbroad. It carried amast, sail, side-rudderand 11 or 12 pairs ofoars. (Photo: UniversityMuseum of NationalAntiquities, Oslo,Norway.)

These will be restored again after theinvestigation.ResultsThe tree-ring curves f rom Oseberg can becombined to give a chronology covering 299years. Similarly the curves from Gokstad andTune also fi t together, producing chronologies


7/9

NOTES 581of 340 and 184 years respectively. Thechronologies f r o m the three localities fittogether very well and f o r m the basis forconstructing a regional chronology covering atotal of 357 years, using results from a total of18 samples. This regional chronology, giventhe name 'Oslo Fiord - Viking Age', can bedated against th e master chronologies f r omsouthern Sweden and Denmark ( T A B L E 1). Itcovers the period f rom A D 536 to 892.

Denmark Scania W.Gtland(D (2) (3)

Oslo FiordViking A ge 5.36 4.45 3 .52TA B LE 1. Synchronisation values ('t'-values) forcomparisons between the calculated regionalchronology from OsloFiord and masterchronologies for Denmark an d southem Sweden.Thefigures in brackets refer to FlGURE 1. Normally't'-values equal to orgreater than 3.5, are regardeds significant indicators of a likely tree-ring match(see Baillie & Pilcher 1973).

If the results from the three sites, Oseberg,Gokstad and Tune, are treated separately thefollowing is evident (FlGURE 7):T he local chronology from Oseberg covers theperiod A D 536-834; all 12 samples weredated. T en samples had intact sapwood, ofwhich five had bark rings in which only

early wood had fo rmed. The last annualring was formed in AD 834, which meansthat the wood samples came f rom treesfelled in the sumrner of A D 834.T he local chronology fo r Gokstad covers theperiod AD548-887; all four samples fromthe grave chamber were dated. None of thesamples had intact sapwood. Theoutermost preserved annual ring wasfo rmed in AD887.Finally, the local chronology for Tune coversthe period A D 709-892; both samples weredated. Neither of the samples had intactsapwood. The outermost preserved annualring was formed in A D 892.

DatingsThe result f r o m Oseberg means that thebuilding of the grave chamber can be dated tothe summer o f A D 834. T he identification ofthe felling season corresponds well with theresults of the botanical investigations whichwere carried out shortly after the excavationof the burial mound in 1904: 'The Osebergmound was built during the course of the latesummer or early autumn, in all possibilityAugust or perhaps September' ( H o l m b o e1917: 205).The date for the construction of the gravechambers at Gokstad and Tune cannot bedetermined with the same accuracy becausenone of the samples had sapwood preserved.

TUNEgrave chamberFELL NG

GOKSTAD li

i

OSEBfcHH 1 grave chamber i 1 i I Bi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^m

l MM! H1 1

1 !i ii iAD 1 , , , _ .- , .

"11 11 i600 700 800 834 900910

FlGURE 7 . Bar diagram which shows the position ofthe dated samples against the time scale.


8/9

582 NOTESThe relative dating of the Go kstad sam plesshows, however, that the outermost annualring l ies very close to the border betweenhear twood and sapwood. In three of thesamples the last annual ring was formed in AD883 and in the fourth it was formed in AD 887.Three of the samples show no traces of toolmarks (from axes etc.) on the surface wherethe sapwood joins the heartwood; they havenot been worked. The indications are that it isjust the sap wo od r ings which are missing.This observation requires further verification,e.g. frorn samples with sapwood present.The felling date can therefore be calculatedby adding an estimated number of sapwoodr ings which have rot ted away to the lastpreserved annual ring in the heartwood.A s there is lack of available Informationabout the numb er of sapw ood rings inNor weg ian oak trees, a s imple arithmeticaverage of the number of sapw ood rings in thefive samples from Oseberg with completesapwood preserved has been calculated. Theaverage number is 14, the minimum being 10and the m a x i m u m 16. This is clearly aninadequate data set on which to base such acalculation and the figure 14 will need to beconf i rmed by fu r the r work . However ,a l though the number of tree-rings in thesapwood in oak trees in northern Europe isstill open to debate, the smal l number ofsapwood rings in the Oseberg materia l issupported by a number of invest igat ionscarried out in other regions which, like theOslo Fiord area, are close to the limit of thenatural distribution of oak in northern Europe(Baillie et al. 1985; Hillam et al. 1987; Wa2ny1990; B ond e unpublished).If we use the average number of sapwoodrings from Oseberg s a basis fo rcompensa t ing for the missing rings in thesamples from Gokstad we arrive at a fellingdate of a round A D 900, presumably in thernge A D 900-905; this is the date for theconstruction of the chamber.The same technique can also be applied tothe samples from Tune, where the materialcase is even more scanty. The outermostannual rings in the two sam ples, forme d in AD891 and AD 892 respectively, are also thoughtto lie close to the hear twoodsapwoodboundary. If we compensate for the missingsapwood rings s above, the felling date fo r

these trees is foun d to lie in the first decade ofthe lOth Century, i.e. A D 905-910. Here too,the felling date also gives the date ofconstruction of the chamber.DiscussionThe dat ing o f the three grave cham bersprovides us with a terminus ante quem for theobjects in the burial mounds; it reveals thatapprox ima te ly tw o generat ions elapsedbetween the burial at Oseberg and the burialsat Gokstad and Tune . The result also con firmsShetelig's conclusion in 1917 that the Tuneand Gokstad bur ia ls can be regarded scontemporary. Accordingly , th e Start of theEarly Oseberg Style m ust be fixed at the endof the second ha l f of the 8th Cen tu ry , inagreement with the resu l t s of recentarchaeological investigations in Denmark.The s tart of the V iking pe riod hastraditionally been linked with the plunderingof the monastery on the Engl ish Is land ofLindisfarne in AD 793. This was clearly animportant event in the local Community, butin the light of the results from the Norwegiansites presented here and of the results fromthe last 1015 years of archaeological researchcarried out in D e n m a r k , this date for theopening of the V iking per iod comes underincreasing scrutiny (Hvass 1986; Bonde 1989;Jensen 1991; Christensen 1991; Bonde et al.1990; 1992).A ll the indicat ions are that the per iodwhich in Nordic archaeology is referred to sthe Viking period has its beginning muchearlier than th e Lindisfarne raid, presumablyearly in the 8th Century. It is only the absenceof written sources from this time which hasuntil now justified the use of the V iking attackon the Nor thumbr ian monas te ry s thebeginning of the Viking P eriod. The materialevidence teils another story!W ith the dating o f the Oseberg, Gokstad andTune burials, archaeologists and art historianshave been provided with yet another fixedpoint which can be used to date finds fromthe Early Viking A ge. This result is not only ofsignif icance for objects from sou the rnScand inavia but a lso for those wh ich arethought to originale in England and Ireland.Acknowledgements. Dr Thomas S. Bartholin, University ofLund, Sweden, Prof . Dieter Eckstein, University of


9/9

NOTES 583Hamburg, Germany, and Dr Tomasz Wa2ny, Academy offine Arts, Warsaw, Poland, have kindly made their masterchronologies avai lable for this s t u dy . T hedendrochronological dating of the Norwegian finds formspari of a project being carried out by the Natural Science

Research Unit of the National Museum of Denmark intothe chronology of the Viking Period.The article was translated into English by DavidRobinson.

ReferencesB A IL L IE , M . G . L . 1982. Tree-ring dating andarchaeology. London: Croom Helm.BAILLIE , M . G . L . & J.R. PILCHER. 1973. A simplecross-dating program for tree-ring research,Tree-RingBulletin 33: 7-14.B A I L L I E , M.G.L . , J. HILLAM, K.R. BRIFFA & D.M.BR O W N . 1985. Re-dating the English art-historical tree-ring chronologies, Nature 315:317-19.B A R T H OL IN, T.S. 1985. Dendrochronology inSweden, ISKOS 5: 489-97.BONDE, N. 1989. Dendrokronologiske dateringer p

Nationalmuseet 1988 - Dendrochronologicaldatings, The National Museum, 1988, Arkasologiskeudgravninger i Danmark 1988: 220-41.B O N D E , N. & K. CHRISTENSEN. 1982. Trelleborgsalder: dendrokronologisk datering - The age ofTrelleborg: dendrochronological dating,Aarboger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og historie1982: 111-52.B O N D E , N., T . B A R T H O L I N , K . C H R I S T E N S E N , O.H.ERIKSEN & K. HAVEMANN. 1990. Dendro-kronologiske dateringsunders0gelser pNationalmuseet 1989 - Dendrochronologicaldating at the National Museum of Denmark1989, Arkseologiske udgravninger i Danmark1989: 245-64.B OND E , N. & O . CRUMLIN-PEDERSEN. 1990. T hedating of Wreck 2, the Longship, f romSkuldelev, Denmark,NewsWARP 7: 3-6.BONDE, N ., A. DALY, O.H. ERIKSEN & K . HAVEMANN.1992. Dendrokronologiske dateringsunder-sagelser p Nationalmuseet 1991 - Dendro-chronological dating at the National Museum ofDenmark 1991, Arkaeologiske udgravninger iDanmark 1991:255-71.BRTHEN, A. 1982. Dendrokronologisk serie frnvsta Sverige 831-1975, RiksantikvariembedetRapport 1982: 1. Stockholm: Central Board ofthe National Antiquities and NationalHistorical Museums.CHRISTENSEN, K. 1991. Wood-anatomical anddendrochronological studies, in M. Bencard,L.B. J0rgensen & H.B. Madsen (ed.), Ribeexcavations 1970-1976 4: 169-81. Esbjerg:Sydjysk Universitetsforlag.

CHRISTIANSEN, T.E. 1982. Trelleborgs alder:arkaeologisk datering The age of Trelleborg:archaeological dating, Aarboger for NordiskOldkyndighed og Historie 1982:84-110.

H IL L A M , J . , R.A. MORGAN & i. TYERS. 1987.Sapwood estimates and the dating of short ringsequences, in R.G.W. Ward (ed.), Applicationsof tree-ring studies: 16585 . Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports. International seriesS333.HOLMBOE, J. 1917. Botanisk unders0kelse av torveni Oseberghaugen, in A.W. Br0gger, H.J. Falk &H. Schetelig ( ed . ) , Osebergfundet 1: 201-5.Kristiania (Oslo): Universitetets Oldsaksamling.HOUGEN, B. 1934. Studier i Gokstadfunnet,Universitetets Oldsaksamling rbog 5.arg.(1931-1932): 74-112.

HVASS, S. 1986. Vorbasse - eine Dorfsiedlungwhrend des 1. Jahrtausends n. Chr. inMitteljtland, Dnemark, Bericht der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 67: 529-42.JENSEN, S. 1991. The Vikings of Ribe. Ribe: DenAntikvariske Smling.KARLSSON, L. 1983. Nordisk Form omdjurornamentik (Nordic f o r m on animalOrnament, summary). Stockholm: Museum ofNational Antiquities.NICOLAYSEN, N. 1882. The Viking ship discoveredat Gokstad in Norway. Kristiania (Oslo): Alb.Cammermeyer.NYDAL, R. 1959. Trondheim natural radiocarbonmeasurements I, in American Journal ofScience Radiocarbon Supplement (Radio-carbon) 1: 76-80.ROESDAHL, E . & D.M. W IL SON (ed.) . 1992. FromViking to Crusader. Catalogue of the 22ndCouncil of Europe Exhibition.SHETELIG, H. 1917. Tuneskibet, JVorsJce Oldfund II.Kristiania (Oslo): Universitetets Oldsaksamling.1920. Vestfoldskolen, in A.W. Br0gger, H.J. Falk &H. Schetelig (ed.), Osebergfundet HL Kristiania(Oslo): Universitetets Oldsaksamling.1926. Tidsbestemmelser i VikingetidensStilhistorie, Finska FornminnesfreningensTidskrift 36(1): 106-12.STUTVER, M. & G.W. PEARSON. 1993. High-precisioncalibration of the radiocarbon time scale,AD1950-500 BC and 2500-6000 BC,Radiocarbon35: 1-24.W A Z N Y , T. 1990. A u f b a u und Anwendung derDendrochronologie fr Eichenholz inPolen. Doctoral dissertation, UniversittHamburg.W I L S O N , D.M. & O. KLINDT-JENSEN. 1966. Vikingart. London: Allen & Unwin.

den do chronological dating of the viking age ship burials at oseberg, gokstad and tune, norway

Documents