See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329249079

Norse Management of Wooden Resources across the North Atlantic:

Highlights from the Norse Greenlandic Settlements

Article  in  Environmental Archaeology · November 2018

DOI: 10.1080/14614103.2018.1547510

CITATIONS READS

3 477

1 author:

Elie Pinta
Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SANNA: Social Archaeology of the North and North Atlantic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elie Pinta on 09 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Environmental Archaeology
The Journal of Human Palaeoecology

ISSN: 1461-4103 (Print) 1749-6314 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yenv20

Norse Management of Wooden Resources across

the North Atlantic: Highlights from the Norse
Greenlandic Settlements

Elie Pinta

To cite this article: Elie Pinta (2018): Norse Management of Wooden Resources across the North
Atlantic: Highlights from the Norse Greenlandic Settlements, Environmental Archaeology, DOI:
10.1080/14614103.2018.1547510

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2018.1547510

Published online: 28 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yenv20
ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2018.1547510

Norse Management of Wooden Resources across the North Atlantic: Highlights

from the Norse Greenlandic Settlements
Elie Pinta
Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Trees and timber are of great importance in many cultures across the globe, whether used as a Received 31 March 2018
construction material, as a fuel source, or for making tools and items of everyday life. This was Revised 16 October 2018
also true in medieval Norse communities, resulting in the presence of considerable amounts of Accepted 8 November 2018
wooden artifacts and raw materials in sites across the North Atlantic. Because of a limited or
KEYWORDS
even sometimes nonexistent timber supply, the Norse needed to rely on external wood Driftwood; Greenland; Norse
sources, drifted or imported wood, for their everyday needs. Following the recent work of North Atlantic; wood
researchers in Iceland and the Faroe Islands, this paper presents results obtained from 710 anatomy; wooden artifacts
artifacts distributed across seven sites in the Eastern and Western Settlements of medieval
Greenland. Taxa identification is used first not only to discuss the strategies of wood
exploitation by the Norse but also to give insights into the provenance of wooden materials.
These, then, contribute to our understanding of timber management, human-environmental
relations and mobility across the North Atlantic.

Introduction identification of wood is used to differentiate between

drifted, imported and local wood sources. The method-
Used for construction, boat building, domestic items or
ology followed here has already been effectively
as a fuel source, wood has been a key material for most
demonstrated and accepted in the North Atlantic
societies throughout time. For people living in Medie-
islands (Malmros 1994; Mooney 2016a, 2016b) and
val Scandinavia, trees and timber were an integral part
more widely across other poorly wooded areas of the
of their landscape and, as a result, infiltrated their
North, such as the North American Arctic (Alix
mythology and culture. Some of the largest medieval
2009a, 2009b, 2012; Shaw 2012; Steelandt 2014). To
assemblages of wooden artifacts in Northern Europe
discuss the concept of a ‘North Atlantic island signa-
come from Viking-Age and Medieval settlements at
ture’ in terms of wood use (Mooney 2016b), this
Hedeby in present day Germany (Westphal 2006),
paper discusses results obtained on wooden artifacts
and York in England (Morris 2000): these collections
assemblages from the Norse Greenland settlements
demonstrate the wide variety of objects that can be
and compares them with similar assemblages from
unearthed when conditions are good for preservation,
medieval Scandinavia (Morris 2000; Westphal 2006),
and as such represent the diversity of activities for
the Faroe Islands (Malmros 1990, 1994, pers.com.)
which wood is used. The North Atlantic islands, on
and Iceland (Mehler and Eggertsson 2006; Mooney
the other hand, are characterised by poor or often
2013, 2016a).
absent tree flora; thus the Norse had to mostly rely
on non-native sources of wood, especially driftwood
and imported timber. The study of wooden artifacts Background
from these islands can help us understand Norse adap-
‘The North Atlantic Saga’
tive strategies when faced with new environments
while also providing information regarding exchange The Norse colonisation of the North Atlantic islands
systems and social relationships between the Norse started during the first half of the 9th century A.D,
colonies of the North Atlantic. with the migration of settlers from Norway and the
Using taxonomic identifications of wooden artifacts British Isles to the Faroe Islands, seeking new arable
from the Norse Greenlandic settlements, and compar- land and areas suitable for animal husbandry (e.g.
ing these results with those of other studies across the Arge 1991, 2000, 2008; Church et al. 2013). Following
North Atlantic, this paper demonstrates that differ- the Faroe Islands, Iceland was settled around A.D.
ences existed in the strategies used by Norse commu- 870, although both medieval sources (Íslendingabók
nities in different parts of the North Atlantic to and Landnámabók) and recent archaeological work
manage wooden resources. The anatomical suggest initial attempts to settle the island shortly

CONTACT Elie Pinta elie.pinta@club-internet.fr

© Association for Environmental Archaeology 2018
2 E. PINTA
before the deposition of the tephra (877 ± 1) (Schmid
et al. 2018; Vésteinsson 2000). After these islands
were colonised, both the Faroese and Icelanders kept
strong cultural, economic and political relationships
with mainland Europe. This unity amongst the Norse
colonies continued with nearly simultaneous conver-
sions of their societies to Christianity during the
tenth and eleventh centuries (Thorláksson 2000).
During the late tenth century, circa A.D. 985, Green-
land was discovered and settled in two areas along
the south-west coast of the island, which were known
as the Eastern and the Western Settlements (Arneborg
2003, 2008). Located about 500 km north of the East-
ern Settlement, the Western Settlement relied econ-
omically on its strategic position along the sea-route
to the northern hunting grounds around Disko Bay,
as well as to the North American shores (Arneborg
2003; Charpentier-Ljungqvist 2005; Seaver 1996).
Shortly after settling southwestern Greenland’s fjords,
expeditions led to the discovery and naming of lands
in the eastern part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,
as far south as Newfoundland. The Saga of the Green-
landers and Erik the Red’s Saga give us the name of
three different locations in North America – Helluland,
Markland, and Vinland – which have been satisfac-
torily identified, north to south, as Baffin Island, the
Labrador coast and Newfoundland, respectfully (Sea-
ver 1996; Wallace 2010). Currently, there is one certain
Norse site in North America, L’Anse aux Meadows, a
‘gateway to Vinland’ (Wallace 1991) on the northern
tip of Newfoundland (Ingstad and Ingstad 2001; Wal-
lace 1991, 2005). Within less than two hundred years,
Figure 1. Simplified ocean currents and driftwood transpor-
tation paths. Modified from Hellmann et al. 2013b, 2017;
Dyke and Savelle 2000 (background map: © geotheque.org).
the Norse had settled all of the North Atlantic islands,
creating a connected cultural, economic and political
region that would endure for centuries.
Wooded Landscapes of the North Atlantic
Islands
When comparing landscapes and available resources
between Northern Europe and the North Atlantic
islands, one notices drastic differences in the tree
flora. While dense woodlands of coniferous and decid-
uous trees cover most of the Scandinavian landscape,
the North Atlantic islands are rather poorly endowed,
with few tree species, shrubs and low vegetation. At
the time when the Norse settled in the Faroe Islands
(Hansen 1966; Jóhansen 1985), Iceland (Caseldine
et al. 2004) or Greenland (Feilberg 1984; Fredskild
1996; Bay 1997), the native flora comprised only a
few tree and shrub species that were often rather
small and twisted. Betula pubescens (downy birch)
woodlands, for example, are typically restricted to shel-
tered inland valleys (Ledger et al. 2014). The most com-
mon shrubs are the northern willow (Salix glauca), the
dwarf birch (Betula nana), and the common juniper
(Juniperus communis), which is the only native conifer-
ous taxon in the North Atlantic islands. It is known
from numerous excavations that the inhabitants of
these islands were using wood and timber for many
different activities such as construction, repair, and
making tools and containers (e.g Andersen and Mal-
mros 1993; Malmros 1994; Mooney 2016a). However,
native species might not have been present in sufficient
quantity or quality for all their needs, nor would their
size or the extent of forested areas have stayed constant
throughout the period of settlement. Thus, driftwood
was a key material for these island communities and
was often essential, as demonstrated in many contexts
across the Arctic (Alix 2005; Alix and Brewster 2004;
Shaw 2012; Steelandt 2014) and the Norse North
Atlantic (Andersen and Malmros 1993; Malmros
1994; Mooney 2016b).
Prior to the arrival of the Norse, it is reasonable to
expect that large quantities of driftwood would have
accumulated at certain points along the island’s coast-
lines, providing a readily available resource for early
colonists. It is also known from historical documents
how extensively driftwood was used by the people liv-
ing there (Mooney 2013, 206). After falling in the bor-
eal rivers, driftwood timbers converge towards the
Transpolar Current, are transported frozen into the
polar pack ice down the Fram Strait, then are carried
south by the East Greenland Current, and eventually
travel north along the western Greenlandic coast
where it deposits on the shores (Häggblom 1982)
(Figure 1). Changes in the transportation and depo-
sition of driftwood on the Arctic shores depend on
multiple environmental factors such as shifts over

time in sea currents or variability in sea ice cover that
explain why driftwood abundance has varied through
time and space (Alix 2005; Hellmann et al. 2013b).
Work done by Ingvarson (1903, 1910), Eurola
(1971), Eggertsson (1994a, 1993), Eggertsson and
Layendecker (1995) or Hellmann et al. (2013a, 2013b,
2017) has shown that driftwood found in Southwest
Greenland originates mainly from Siberian boreal for-
ests, but also from North America with each source
providing a specific range of taxa. As a result, driftwood
taxa can be classed as locally available in Greenland,
along with the native species of the island, while all
other species or taxa would have been imported.
Larch (Larix sp.) and spruce (Picea sp.) species account
for the most common driftwood taxa in the Arctic,
with a few occurrences of fir (Abies sp.) deciduous
(Betula sp., Salix sp. and Populus sp.) (Eggertsson
1993; Hellmann et al. 2013b, 2015). Although pine
(Pinus sp.) is nowadays the most abundant, it is in
part due to modern logging activities and was probably
much rarer in old driftwood assemblages (Ibid.).
From historic sources such as Konungs skuggsjá
(The King’s Mirror, 1421) we learn that the inhabitants
of the North Atlantic islands were able to rely on
imported timber from Northern Europe in order to
compensate their lack of wood resources (Seaver
1996). In a recent study conducted on Icelandic arti-
facts, Mooney suggests that there is a ‘North Atlantic
island signature in wood resource exploitation, which
is clearly distinct from contemporary sites in Europe
and Scandinavia’ (2016b, 287). This signature in
wood use and management is dominated by conifer
taxa (pine, spruce and larch) and complemented by
‘a minimal presence of non-native hardwoods other
than oak’ (Ibid.). In the case of the Greenland settle-
ments, there is an additional wood source that need
to be accounted for. As already discussed above, it
seems that Norse Greenlanders brought back home
timber from Vinland that could even be found as far
as Norway (The Saga of the Greenlanders, 212). Men-
tion of voyages between the North Atlantic islands
and the north American coast is also reported in the
Icelandic annals (The Norse Discovery of America
[online], 106–1073). This implies some level of contin-
ued visitation, or at least knowledge, of the regions of
Labrador and Newfoundland and it is thus highly
probable that certain wooden materials used in the
Greenland Settlements came from the forested areas
of Markland and Vinland (Arneborg 2003; Charpen-
tier-Ljungqvist 2005). Based on our present under-
standing, therefore, we might expect Greenland’s
Norse settlers to have carried with them a pattern of
wood use and selection conforming to Mooney’s
‘North Atlantic signature’. However, it is also possible
that the Greenlandic context reflects the unique access
to adjacent North American shores. In the following
sections, a corpus of domestic artifacts is examined to
ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 3
understand the management and provenancing of
wooden resources in the Norse settlements of
Greenland.
Materials and Methods
Stave-Built and Carved Containers
The corpus discussed in this paper is composed of
wooden containers that were essential in many daily
life activities such as transportation, the storage of var-
ious goods, and the preparation and consumption of
meals. Wooden vessels were constructed using both
stave-built and carving technologies, which resulted
in vessels in a range of shapes, sizes, and volumes.
The study of domestic artifacts not only permits
insights into their production and provenance, but
also provides information about their ubiquity and
variation among households representing Norse
Greenland’s different socioeconomic levels because
every household needed such vessels. Moreover, the
making of such artifacts requires particular sets of skills
and expertise, for instance, in selecting the proper raw
materials (e.g. Comey 2007; Earwood 1993; Kilby 1990;
Morris 2000). Stave-built containers – also known as
coopered vessels – of various volumes, such as barrels,
casks or buckets, are all manufactured following the
same principle. The body of the container is made
with wooden planks called staves that are held together
with a binding made of wood (Morris 2000). For closed
containers such as barrels, casks or kegs, there are two
embedded bases at either end, one of which is usually
referred to as the lid. Some lids are drilled with vent
or batten holes (Morris 2000, 2247), but not always,
thus making them sometimes quite difficult to differen-
tiate from a base. However, open containers such as
buckets, pails and tubs can be closed using a removable
lid, usually characterised by the presence of ‘notches
cut into their edges on opposite sides’ (Morris 2000,
2255) or a handle (or the peg holes left by it) to lift it
up. Two techniques can be distinguished in the making
of coopered containers: ‘wet coopering’ for the pro-
duction of watertight containers used in the transpor-
tation and storage of liquids, and ‘dry coopering’
(also known as ‘white coopering’) referring to contain-
ers produced for use with dry goods. For watertight
containers, there is also a distinction in the technique
between kegs (made with straight edged staves) and
barrels (made with curved staves whose ends are nar-
rower than the middle) (Comey 2007). The other
major vessels encountered in medieval Norse sites are
hand-carved and lathe-turned containers, such as the
cups, bowls or plates used in storing, preparing and
consuming food (e.g. Comey 2007; Earwood 1993;
Morris 2000; Westphal 2006).
Due to presence of permafrost in many of Green-
land’s Norse sites, a remarkable number of such vessels
4 E. PINTA
and vessel parts have been recovered from excavated
and salvaged sites over the past century. More than
700 wooden containers and related artifacts were avail-
able in curated collections at the National Museum of
Denmark and the Greenland National Museum &
Archives to assess medieval Greenland’s communities
uses and selection of wood taxa. These artefacts had
been preserved in dwellings, ancillary buildings used
for various purposes, or adjacent middens. The
material examined here came from the sites of Qor-
lortup Itinnera (Ø34), Tasilikulooq (Ø171) and Tatsip
Ataa (Ø172) in the Eastern Settlement; Sandnes (V51),
Gården Under Sandet (GUS), Umiiviarsuk (V52a) and
Austmannadal (V53d) in the Western Settlement
(Table 1, Figure 2).
These data are then compared with similar wooden
assemblages from across the Norse world: Hedeby in
Germany (Westphal 2006), York in England (Morris
2000), Uppistovubeitinum in the Faroe Islands (Mal-
mros, pers.com.), Stóraborg (Mehler and Eggertsson
2006) and Alþingisreiturinn in Iceland (Mooney
2013, 2016a) (Table 2).
Methods
Anatomical wood identification analysis was under-
taken to investigate the variability and preservation of
the archaeological wood remains, in order to discuss
the provenance of materials. Establishing the prove-
nance of the wood used to make each artifact involved
distinguishing gymnosperm (coniferous or softwood)
and angiosperm (deciduous or hardwood) trees based
on the recognition of specific anatomical character-
istics (Shweingruber 2007).
Wood taxa identification is made by comparing
specific anatomical features of the sample with modern
comparative materials and reference atlases (e.g.
Hather 2000; Schoch et al. 2004; Schweingruber
1990). In this study, each artifact was sampled, and
thin slivers observed in the three sections of the
wood (i.e. transverse or cross section, longitudinal tan-
gential, and longitudinal radial) under a transmitted
light, high-powered microscope with a ranging mag-
nification from x100 to x600. The level at which it
was possible to identify wood taxa depended, in part,
upon the preservation of the artifact, and often it was
only possible to identify the wood taxa used at the
genus level and only rarely to species. Consequently,
wood identification results are presented at the genus
level (e.g. Picea sp.). Additional difficulties arose
when differentiating between spruce (Picea sp.) and
larch (Larix sp.) since separating these taxa relies
mainly on the shape of bordered pits present in the
ray tracheid extensions. It is the recurrence of each
type of bordered pit (Picea 1, Picea 2, Intermediate
and Larix) that helps separate the two taxa (Anagnost,
Meyer, and de Zeeuw 1994; Bartholin 1979). The
observation of such features is not always possible
due to the state of artifacts’ preservation and as a result
these genera will not be separated when discussing the
results.
Results
Nine taxa were identified within the sampled artifacts.
The most common were coniferous wood taxa, domi-
nated by spruce (Picea sp.) and larch (Larix sp.).
Other identified coniferous taxa included juniper (Juni-
perus sp.) and two types of pine (Scots pine – Pinus
Sect. sylvestris / white pine – Pinus Sect. strobus).
Deciduous taxa were rare but present nonetheless:
alder (Alnus sp.), birch (Betula sp.), oak (Quercus sp.)
and willow (Salix sp.) (Table 3).
In total, 77.3% of the analyzed samples (549 arti-
facts) are spruce or larch wood. Pine species represent
11.5% of the sample (82 artifacts) with only five of
them unspecified pine (Pinus sp.), the rest could be
identified to the species level with a total of 52 Scots
Pine and 25 White Pine artifacts. In all, spruce, larch
and pine species comprise 88.8% of the corpus. None
of these conifers grow naturally in Greenland today
or are known to have grown in Greenland during the
Holocene. Significantly, 7.8% of the sample (55 arti-
facts) were identified as juniper, which is a conifer indi-
genous to Greenland. The rest of the corpus (3.4%) is
composed of a mixture of both native and exogenous
deciduous species, including willow, alder, birch and
oak.
Although coniferous taxa are generally dominant,
specifically spruce and larch, significant variations
can be seen when looking at artifact subtypes and
site locations. In the Western Settlement sites, con-
tainers made from these taxa represent a minimum
of 84% of the analyzed artifacts, whereas they rep-
resent a maximum of 77% in sites from the Eastern
Settlement. Variation in wood use can also be seen
in artifact subtypes. Thus, whilst these taxa and pro-
portions are reflected in the materials used for con-
structing stave-built containers, they were less often
used in the making of carved vessels, particularly at
the Eastern Settlement sites Ø172 and Ø171, where
none (Ø172) or only half (Ø171) of the carved vessels
were made from spruce or larch. However, the sample
of carved vessels at both of these sites was too limited
to draw any general conclusions, since spruce and
larch were regularly identified for these kinds of arti-
facts in the other sites.
A closer examination of the turned and hand carved
vessels might be of greater interest. At Ø34, Ø171,
Sandnes and Umiiviarsuk, all the hand carved vessels
were made from spruce or larch, whereas turned
vessels presented a broader spectrum of taxa, including
both other coniferous and deciduous taxa. Here again,
the limited number of examples (17 hand carved
 ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 5

Table 1. List of the Greenlandic sites from which the wooden artifacts have been selected. Modified after Madsen 2014.
Excavated ruin
Site Region Excavation Date of deposit groups Primary references
Qorlortup Eastern Settlement 1994–1995 Eleventh – fifteenth Midden Nyegaard pers.com.; Guldager, Hansen, and
Itinnera (Qorlortoq Valley) century Gleie (2002)
Tasilikulooq Eastern Settlement 2011, 2016 Early eleventh – mid Midden Madsen (2014)
(Vatnahverfi) thirteenth century
Tatsip Ataa Eastern Settlement 2007, 2009, Late tenth – late Midden Smiarowski (2010)
(Vatnahverfi) 2010 thirteenth century
GUS Western Settlement 1991–1996 Early eleventh –mid/ Dwelling, structure Andreasen and Arneborg (1992); Arneborg
late fourteenth and Berglund (1993); Albrethsen and
century Ólafsson (1998); Berglund (1998a, 2000,
2001)
Sandnes Western Settlement 1903, 1930, Late tenth –mid/late Dwelling, structure, Bruun (1917); Roussell (1936); Arneborg
(Kilaarsarfik) 1932, 1984 fourteenth century midden, church- (1985); McGovern et al. (1996)
yard
Umiiviarsuk Western Settlement 1934 Early eleventh –mid/ Dwelling, midden, Roussell (1936)
late fourteenth structure
century
Austmannadal Western Settlement 1937 Early eleventh –mid/ Dwelling, midden Roussell (1941)
(Austmannadal late fourteenth
Valley) century

vessels) prevents conclusive arguments, but the pat- vessels, were present in the other sites’ assemblages.
terns are suggestive. Interestingly, at Ø34 this high proportion of juniper
As stated above, two types of pine were identified in artifacts coincided with the largest percentage of pine
the Greenland corpus – Scots Pine and White Pine – and one of the lowest amounts of spruce and larch
except in five cases where differentiation was inconclu- items in any of the the Greenland sites.
sive. In general, Scots Pine occurred twice as often as Finally, 24 containers parts or fragments were made
White Pine, and, at Ø171, it was the only pine that from deciduous taxa, with a majority of willow (9
was used for containers. Conversely, White Pine was items) and alder (8 items). Oak and birch were ident-
found most often at Sandnes and at GUS in the Wes- ified in extremely small quantities (4 and 3 items,
tern Settlement. Pine containers also seems more respectively). Unlike coniferous species, which are pre-
prevalent in the Eastern Settlement, where the sent in all the seven sites of the corpus, despite the
spruce/larch artifacts were less common, than in the above-mentioned variations, deciduous artifacts are
Western Settlement. A closer look, site-by-site, reveals unevenly distributed across them. Eight turned vessel
the dominant use of pine for stave-built items over fragments made of alder came from Ø171 and GUS,
carved vessels at Ø34, Ø171 and Austmannadal, while willow was used at Ø34, Ø171 and GUS for the
while the contrary is observed at Ø172, Sandnes and production of both stave-built and carved vessels.
Umiiviarsuk. Oak was only present at Ø34 (two staves and two lid/
Another coniferous taxon, juniper (Juniperus sp.), base parts) and birch came only from Ø171 (two staves
was identified at five of the seven sites. A total of 39 and one turned vessel fragment). Interestingly, the only
staves made of juniper were identified at Ø34 whereas taxon that is assuredly of exogenous origin, oak, was
only a few artifacts, mostly staves but also a few carved present only in the Eastern Settlement, which lay closer
than the Western Settlement to the medieval North
Atlantic trade routes. Even there, however, it was pre-
Table 2. Artifacts chosen for comparison of the Greenlandic sent at just one site. Lastly, the fact that alder has only
data from York (Morris 2000), Hedeby (Westphal 2006),
been identified for turned vessels might indicate
Uppistovubeitinum (Malmros, pers.com.), Alþingisreiturinn
(Mooney 2013, 2016a) and Stóraborg (Mehler and Eggertsson specific choices made by the Norse woodworkers.
2006).
Stave-built
vessel Carved Total Discussion and Comparison of Wooden
Location Site components vessel (n) Artifact Assemblages
Greenland Qorlortup Itinnera 164 10 174
Tasilikulooq 68 10 78 What can immediately be noticed are differences
Tatsip Ataa 19 3 22
GUS 176 41 217
regarding the use of wood species between the Green-
Austmannadal 53 15 68 landic sites and the Scandinavian and North European
Umiiviarsuk 42 9 51 corpus (Figure 3). Of particular interest is the progress-
Sandnes 85 15 100
Iceland Stóraborg 90 – 90 ive transition from Europe to Greenland between
Alþingisreiturinn 123 8 131 assemblages dominated by deciduous species, specifi-
Faroe Uppistovubeitinum 34 11 45
Islands cally oak, to assemblages dominated by coniferous
Europe Hedeby 333 474 807 taxa with only a few artifacts made of deciduous
York 229 101 330
wood, and even sometimes none. Interestingly, the
6 E. PINTA

Figure 2. Location of the Greenlandic sites discussed in the paper (background map: © Asiaq: Nunniffiit 1:250.000).

sites in the Faroe Islands and Iceland seem to work as a
buffer zone between Scandinavia and Greenland, as an
area where the wood taxa visible in the European sites
were still present but were much less significant.
In the North Atlantic islands, it has been demon-
strated that the presence of stave-built containers
made of oak reflects commercial and economic
relationships between Europe and the Atlantic settle-
ments, since Quercus sp. is not native or found in drift-
wood heaps and must be imported (Eggertsson 1993;
Malmros 1994; Mooney 2016b). In northern Europe,
oak represents an important proportion of the stave-
built containers, even though variations can be
observed. At Hedeby, oak accounts for 45% of the coo-
pered vessels (Westphal 2006) and nearly 94% of coo-
pered vessels were made from oak at York (Morris
2000). Oak is also significantly present at Novgorod
in Russia (Brisbane and Hather 2007). The source of
oak found on sites in the North Atlantic islands can,
on occasion, be specified by dendroprovenance. It has
been demonstrated, for example, that the oak used
for making stave-built containers found at Stóraborg
in Iceland originated in the area around Gdansk in
Poland (Mehler and Eggertsson 2006).
In addition to the oak, at Hedeby fir (Abies sp.) rep-
resents almost 30% of the stave-built containers, while
spruce and pine species account for as much as 10%.
Fir, spruce and larch have also been identified at
Lund in Sweden and Bergen in Norway, and so seem
to have been of great use in southwestern Scandinavia
(Bartholin 1979). Coopered vessels are more easily
made from softwoods, such as those from coniferous
species, since it requires more effort to cleave hard-
wood and turn it into planks (Mille 1989). As such,

Figure 3. Simplified taxonomic classification of stave-built and carved vessels from Hedeby (Westphal 2006) and York (Morris 2000)
in northern Europe; Uppistovubeitinum (Malmros, pers.com.) in the Faroe Islands; Stóraborg (Mehler and Eggertsson 2006) and
Alþingisreiturinn (Mooney 2013, 2016a) in Iceland. Wood taxa identification for the Greenlandic sites was made by the author.
Table 3. Taxonomic identification of selected artifacts from the Greenlandic sites discussed in the paper.
Location Site Artifact subtype Alnus sp. Betula sp. Juniperus sp. Quercus sp. Larix sp. Picea sp. Picea sp./ Larix sp. Pinus sp. Pinus Sect. strobus Pinus Sect. sylvestris Salix sp. Total (n)
Eastern Settlement Qorlortup Itinnera Stave – – 39 2 6 41 45 – 5 11 1 150
Lid/base – – – 2 1 2 5 – – 4 – 14
Turned vessel – – – – – – 2 – – 1 – 3
Hand carved vessel – – – – 1 3 3 – – – – 7
Tasilikulooq Stave – 2 3 – 3 14 21 – – 13 4 60
Lid/base – – – – 1 1 1 – – 5 – 8
Turned vessel 3 1 – – – 2 2 – – – 1 9
Hand carved vessel – – – – – 1 – – – – – 1
Tatsip Ataa Stave – – – – 2 3 9 – 1 1 – 16
Lid/base – – – – – 2 1 – – – – 3
Turned vessel – – 2 – – – – – – 1 – 3
Hand carved vessel – – – – – – – – – – – 0
Western Settlement Austmannadal Stave – – – – 4 9 21 1 2 3 – 40
Lid/base – – – – – 1 11 – 1 – – 13
Turned vessel – – – – 1 2 4 1 – 1 – 9
Hand carved vessel – – – – – 3 2 1 – – – 6
GUS Stave – – 3 – 22 70 45 – 8 2 1 151
Lid/base – – – – 4 8 8 1 2 1 1 25
Turned vessel 5 – 1 – 2 9 9 – – 2 – 28
Hand carved vessel – – – – 4 5 2 – 1 – 1 13
Sandnes Stave – – 6 – 11 24 24 1 2 – – 68
Lid/base – – – – 2 4 10 – – 1 – 17
Turned vessel – – 1 – – 5 3 – 1 – – 10
Hand carved vessel – – – – – 2 3 – – – – 5
– – – – – –

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Umiiviarsuk Stave 5 6 7 1 3 22
Lid/base – – – – – 7 12 – 1 – – 20
Turned vessel – – – – – – 2 – – 3 – 5
Hand carved vessel – – – – – 3 1 – – – – 4
Total (n) 8 3 55 4 69 227 253 5 25 52 9 710

7
8 E. PINTA
the use of oak – a hard wood – for stave built containers
is likely due to other inherent qualities in the wood; oak
has a high tannin concentration and gives the container
antimicrobial characteristics, making it particularly
suitable for the preservation and storage of liquids
with a high sugar content, such as wine or beer. Since
coopered vessels made of coniferous taxa are found
in Europe, it is possible that some arrived in the
North Atlantic islands through trade routes, especially
Scots pine which was not significant in the driftwood
assemblages before the mid-twentieth century
(Eggertsson 1994a, 1993; Hellmann et al. 2015). How-
ever, larch and White Pine do not grow in northern
Europe, and thus are unlikely to have been imported
through the North Atlantic trade routes.
It is, therefore, crucial to take into account the role
of driftwood in the North Atlantic islands. Its value
to settlers and landowners in medieval Iceland even
led to the enactment of laws that might, in part, explain
the variations observed from sites to sites (Dennis,
Foote, and Perkins 2000). Here again, it seems that
the Faroe Islands and Iceland constitute an intermedi-
ate step between Europe and Greenland. At Uppistovu-
beitinum in the Faroe Islands, spruce and larch
represent 9% (4 items) of the wooden containers’ com-
ponents, with the majority of them made from Scots
pine (Malmros, pers.com.). At Stóraborg in Iceland,
these taxa represented almost 50% (100 items) of the
coopered vessels (Mehler and Eggertsson 2006). And
in certain cases, driftwood taxa are not very well rep-
resented at all within the wooden containers. For
example, at the Alþingisreiturinn site in Reykjavík, Ice-
land, driftwood taxa account for just 14% of the coo-
pered containers (18 items), while 68% (87 items)
were made from oak or Scots Pine. When looking at
the rest of the wooden artifacts, however, driftwood
was used for more than half of the assemblage from
that site (Mooney 2016a). It seems, then, that where
imported materials were available, driftwood taxa
were not favoured for making containers and may
have been reserved for other needs, such as the con-
struction of buildings and boats (Mooney 2016c).
In contrast, at the Greenlandic sites driftwood taxa
always represent a minimum of half of the corpus,
and in most cases more than the three quarters of it.
Even if some of the coopered vessels, such as barrels
and casks, might have been obtained through long-dis-
tance trading activities, local domestic production must
also be taken into account. At Ø34, two staves and two
lid/base elements were made from oak, but their rather
small dimensions indicate they were not part of a bar-
rel. One stave is broken but very thin and the other is
only 8 cm long; ordinary barrel and cask staves are sev-
eral tens of centimetres in length and at least one centi-
metre thick (e.g. Comey 2007; Morris 2000; Westphal
2006). Likewise, lid and/or base fragments from Ø34
suggest items of a rather small diameter (respectively
13 and 19 cm) and not massive containers. It is thus
more likely these oak artifacts were reused, or made
from recycled larger containers that were turned into
smaller, domestic vessels. The absence of larger diam-
eter lids or bases is also apparent in Iceland where, gen-
erally, the very few examples of complete containers in
archaeological contexts appears to illustrate the reuse
or recycling of larger wooden items. Since oak seems
to have been of little importance for making containers
in Greenland, we should examine other taxa to better
understand how domestic containers were made and
used.
Buckets and tubs would have been needed for a wide
range of everyday activities and this suggests they were
locally produced. While they could have been obtained
through regional trade networks, it is unlikely they
reflect long-distance imports. Stave-built vessels, as
well as carved ones, were also used in the preparation
and consumption of meals. Artifacts such as bowls,
cups, platters and plates usually reflect a different spec-
trum of taxa than the one associated with stave-built
containers. This is true in Scandinavia as well as in
medieval Europe, where such artifacts are predomi-
nantly made using hardwoods like maple, but also
softer species like alder, birch or willow (e.g. Comey
2007; Mille 1989; Morris 2000; Westphal 2006).
In the North Atlantic islands, no medieval artifacts
made of maple wood have been identified, but several
fragments of turned or hand-carved vessels made of
alder, birch and willow were found on the Faroe Islands
(Malmros 1994, pers.com.) and in both the Eastern and
the Western Settlements in Greenland. Knowing that
alder, birch and willow species are native to these
islands, the making of such artifacts seems to indicate
local production. However, lathe-turning tools and
waste cores, which are commonly found in Scandinavia
and Europe, have never been identified in any North
Atlantic excavations (e.g. Comey 2007; Morris 2000;
Westphal 2006). It is therefore uncertain whether
turned vessels were made locally on the islands, were
imported, and whether these waste products may
simply not have been recognised or retained in the
early excavations from which many of the North
Atlantic wood assemblages came. Examining other
taxa used for making domestic vessels, though, could
favour local production on the North Atlantic islands.
The majority (76.8%) of the 103 fragments from
turned or carved vessels identified from Greenland
are made of spruce or larch. This strongly argues for
the use of driftwood materials rather than importation
of items from Scandinavia or Europe, where other taxa
would probably have been preferred. Additionally,
coopering and wood turning require very specific and
specialised skills, among them, the proper identifi-
cation and selection of wood (Earwood 1993). Carved
and sculpted items, on the other hand, require more
basic tools, such as knives, and could have been made

more casually by a larger number of people. Spruce and
larch are known to be suitable materials for woodturn-
ing, and the presence of turned vessels from these taxa
in Greenlandic sites suggests considerable woodwork-
ing expertise within the Norse Greenland settlements.
In addition to these taxa, six fragments of Scots pine
were found in five different sites in both Settlements.
Scots pine seems to be less suitable for wood turning
(Baker 2016), so its use indicates that at certain times
proper materials might have been unavailable, or had
to be used for other purposes. Finally, two carved
vessels of white pine and four turned items of juniper
support local production rather than the import of
finished products.
Raw Materials and Resource Availability
Comparing the wooden artifact assemblages from
northern Europe and the North Atlantic islands, a geo-
graphical spread that encompasses different ecosys-
tems and flora resources, allows us to engage in the
study of human adaptive strategies in different
environments. In sub-Arctic regions, wood resources
are limited in variety and proportion but are widely
used nevertheless. Norse adaptive strategies have
been summarised, in part, through the concept of a
‘North Atlantic signature of timber exploitation’
(Mooney 2016b). Wooden artifact assemblages from
Norse archaeological sites on the North Atlantic
islands can be characterised by a low number of decid-
uous items, excluding oak, and a high number of con-
iferous taxa, dominated by spruce, larch and pines.
Whereas Scots Pine timbers are probably imported,
spruce and larch are commonly found within drift-
wood heaps, strongly suggesting wood management
strategies in which locally available materials were
more frequently used than imported woods.
However, this wood utilisation pattern requires
complementary study since several factors could
explain the differences observed across the North
Atlantic islands. At least for a time, sites in the Faroe
Islands and Iceland seem to have shared a similar pat-
tern, benefiting from access to a certain amount of
imported timber, while driftwood was used as an
additional source of raw material. In some cases
though, we can notice that driftwood taxa were at
least as important as imported ones. This is even
more noticeable in the Greenlandic settlements,
where driftwood seems to have been the primary
source of raw material, while the importation of arti-
facts, such as wooden containers, is much less appar-
ent. Can this pattern be explained as geographic –
because the Greenlandic colonies were the farthest
west and least accessible -, or economic – did wooden
materials carry different value in different places? It is
known that the Greenland settlements were well inte-
grated into North Atlantic trade routes, contributing
ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 9
walrus and other Arctic commodities to Scandinavian
and continental European markets and consumers
(Frei et al. 2015); and, more generally, it has been
argued that the settlement of the North Atlantic islands
was, in part, driven by economic purposes (Keller
2010).
If the concept of a ‘North Atlantic islands signa-
ture’ for wood use does not entirely summarise the
Norse Greenland management strategies for wooden
materials, it seems likely that this reflects two major
reasons. First, compared to the Faroe Islands and Ice-
land, Greenland is characterised by larger quantities
of locally available material, both native and drift-
wood species. When compared to Iceland, greater
resources were shared among a smaller population,
which, at least for a time, may explain certain strat-
egies of self-sufficiency that are apparent in Green-
land. Second, we may have to consider the part
played by ‘remote resource regions’ (Charpentier-
Ljungqvist 2005) in the acquisition of wood and tim-
ber. As discussed above and recorded in both the
Saga of the Greenlanders and Erik the Red’s Saga,
Norse Greenlanders apparently organised
expeditions to North America’s shores to acquire
timber and other items, although the frequency, dur-
ation, and specific direction of those expeditions are
unknown. Thus, it is likely that some of the wooden
materials used in the Greenland settlements came
from the forested areas of Markland and Vinland.
There is currently a shortage of data available for
further discussion of this possibility, but identifying
woods from these locations would help us specify
how well integrated the Greenland colonies, and
the whole North Atlantic region, were with North
American settlements.
As underlined before, taxa identification has limits;
it is often not possible to differentiate between wood
of species within the same genus, or the locations
where trees grew. Artifacts made of spruce (Picea sp.)
could have come from different locations, including
Siberia (Picea obovata), Alaska or Canada (Picea
glauca), Scandinavia (Picea abies), or Labrador/New-
foundland (P. glauca, Picea mariana, Picea rubens)
(Brouillet et al. 2010; Eggertsson 1994a; Meades, Stuart,
and Brouillet 2000). Similarly, it is not possible using
taxa identification to differentiate the larch from Rus-
sia/Siberia (Larix sibirica, Larix gmelinii) from that
which grew in Labrador/Newfoundland (Larix lari-
cina) (Brouillet et al. 2010). Following the same logic
that dictates the use of driftwood over imported
materials, we can consider that timber brought back
from the American shores would have been preferred
for specific purposes, perhaps boat or house building,
rather than having been used in the production of
everyday domestic items. However, we currently lack
adequate data to state any definitive patterns for
wood use in Norse Greenland.
10 E. PINTA
Limitations and Future Directions
It is apparent from this study, based on results obtained
mainly from domestic artifacts, that locally available
material was preferred for these objects. Spruce
would then have been obtained from driftwood rather
than imported from Europe or even brought back from
North America. Knowing that the Norse were skilful
woodworkers, it is also likely that some materials
were imported for specific reasons, such as timber
quality, size or even colour. Differentiating between
drifted, imported, and native wood will provide a
clearer understanding of resource exploitation and
trade patterns in the Norse colonies. Accomplishing
this task, however, requires more accurate provenance
assessments than those provided by taxonomic
identification alone.
Tree ring studies have proven extremely valuable for
tracing the origins of wood in many contexts. The early
work of pioneers, such as the dendrochronologist-
turned-archaeologist J. Louis Giddings, demonstrated
the utility of tree-ring studies for Arctic archaeology,
not only in Alaska but also the Canadian Arctic (Gid-
dings 1940, 1941, 1947, 1954; Nash 2000). More
recently, Hellmann et al. (2015, 2013a, 2013b, 2017)
have produced new data in provenancing of Arctic
driftwood. Isotopic analysis has also proven useful in
archaeology for sourcing materials such as bones, tex-
tiles, or metal objects (Pollard et al. 2007). Previous
studies (e.g. English et al. 2001; Reynolds et al. 2005)
have illustrated that strontium (Sr) isotopes can be
used to determine the provenance of wooden materials.
The potential for assigning provenance to wooden arti-
facts using isotopic analysis, therefore, is high and may
be able to provide us with the data necessary to differ-
entiate among artifacts crafted in similar environments
or production areas, and to establish their provenance
based on modern reference samples of known origin.
Conclusions
This paper has shown that it is possible, using taxon
identification, to categorize the provenance of wooden
materials found within archaeological sites. It is poss-
ible to differentiate between native, drifted and
imported wood based on artifact types and functions,
within certain analytical limits. The study of domestic
objects used in the Greenlandic Norse settlements
not only helps us understand societal organisation bet-
ter at a regional scale, but also clarifies interactions
between the North Atlantic islands and northern
Europe. Despite living in rather poorly wooded
environments, the Norse continued using timber, rely-
ing not only on driftwood but also on locally growing
trees and shrubs, as well as imports. As has been
suggested, a ‘North Atlantic island signature’ (Mooney
2016b) characterises these settlements and can be
verified through this research. However, local variation
is observed and adjustments in the methods used
should be made to fully understand how the Norse
Greenlanders managed wooden resources. Taxa
identification alone cannot answer these questions
and further research using tree ring data as well as
archaeological chemistry have the potential to help bet-
ter understand how, and for how long, Greenland’s
‘remote resource regions’ (Arneborg 2003; Charpen-
tier-Ljungqvist 2005) were exploited. Moreover, this
paper has only discussed a specific type of wooden arti-
fact, the containers, and complementary data should be
obtained in order to get a more exhaustive understand-
ing of the social, economic and temporal scales of
human-environment interactions in the North Atlantic
islands.
Notes
1. ‘But in Greenland it is this way, as you probably know,
that whatever comes from other lands is high in price,
for this land lies so distant from other countries that
men seldom visit it. And everything that is needed
to improve the land must be purchased abroad, both
iron and all the timber used in building houses. In
return for their wares the merchants bring back the
following products: buckskin, or hides, sealskins, and
rope of the kind that we talked about earlier which
is called “leather rope” and is cut from the fish called
walrus, and also the teeth of the walrus’.
2. ‘When he was ready to sail and ship lay at the landing
stage awaiting a favourable wind, he [Karlsefni] was
approached by a southerner, from Bremen in Saxony.
He asked Karlsefni to sell him the carved decoration
on the prow. “I don’t care to sell it,” he replied. “I’ll
give you half a mark of gold for it,” the southerner
said. Karlsefni thought it was a good offer and the pur-
chase was concluded. The southerner then took the
decoration and departed. Karlsefni did not know of
what wood it was made, but it was of burl wood
which had been brought from Vinland’.
3. ‘There came also a ship from Greenland, less in size
than small Icelandic trading vessels. It came into the
outer Stream-firth. It was without an anchor. There
were seventeen men on board, and they had sailed
to Markland, but had afterwards been driven hither
by storms at sea’.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was conducted under a
Doctoral Research Grant from the Région Île de France/Uni-
versité Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, and a Research Grant
from the Musée du Quai Branly Jacques-Chirac. The archae-
ological artifacts discussed in this study have been provided
by the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen
(special thanks to Jette Arneborg) and the Greenland
National Museum & Archives in Nuuk (special thanks to
Christian K. Madsen, Michael Nielsen and Bo Albrechtsen).
The author is particularly grateful for the guidance and com-
ments of Claire Alix at the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sor-
bonne/UMR 8096 ArchAm, Kevin P. Smith at Brown
University’s Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Laura

Swantek at the University of Arizona/School of Human
Evolution and Social Change, Michèle Hayeur-Smith at the
Brown University/Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology,
Claudia Baittinger at the National Museum of Denmark/
Environmental Archaeology and Material Sciences and
Christian K. Madsen at the Greenland National Museum
& Archives. Special thanks to Claus Malmros and Georg
Nyegaard for providing me with some of their unpublished
data. Thanks are also due to the reviewers whose helpful
comments contributed to the improvement of this paper.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This work was supported by Fondation Martine Aublet /
Musée du Quai Branly Jacques Chirac [grant number Bourse
doctorale de la Fondation Martine Aublet 2016–2017];
Région Île de France / University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
[grant number Allocation doctorale financée par la Région
Île de France (16012982)].
References
Albrethsen, S. E., and G. Ólafsson. 1998. “A Viking Age
Hall.” In Man, Culture and Environment in Ancient
Greenland: Report on a Research Program, edited by J.
Arneborg and H. C. Gulløv, 19–30. Viborg: Danish
Polar Center & the Danish National Museum.
Alix, C. 2005. “Deciphering the Impact of Change on the
Driftwood Cycle: Contribution to the Study of Human
Use of Wood in the Arctic.” Global and Planetary
Change 47 (2): 83–98.
Alix, C. 2009a. “Driftwood, Timber and Shrubs! Wood Used
by Ruin-Islander Thule at Skraeling Island, Eastern
Ellesmere Island, Canada.” In On the Track of the Thule
Culture from Bering Strait to East Greenland.
Proceedings of the SILA Conference “The Thule Culture,
New Perspectives in Inuit Prehistory”, Copenhagen,
October 26th-28th 2006. Papers in Honour of Hans
Christian Gulløv, edited by B. Grønnow, 149–165.
Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.
Alix, C. 2009b. “Persistence and Change in Thule Wood
Use.” In The Northern World, AD 900-1400, edited by
H. Maschner and O. K. Mason, 179–205. Salt Lake City:
The University of Utah Press.
Alix, C. 2012. “Using Wood on King Island, Alaska.” Études/
Inuit/Studies 36 (1): 89–112.
Alix, C., and K. Brewster. 2004. “Not all Driftwood is Created
Equal: Wood Use and Value Along the Yukon and
Kuskowim Rivers, Alaska.” Alaska Journal of
Anthropology 2 (1-2): 48–65.
Anagnost, S. E., R. W. Meyer, and C. de Zeeuw. 1994.
“Confirmation and Significance of Bartholin’s Method
for the Identification of the Wood of Picea and Larix.”
International Association of Wood Anatomists Journal
15 (2): 171–184.
Andersen, E., and C. Malmros. 1993. “Ship’s Parts Found in
the Viking Settlement in Greenland. Preliminary
Assessments and Wood-Diagnoses.” In Viking Voyages
to North America, edited by B. L. Clausen, 118–122.
Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum.
ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 11
Andreasen, C., and J. Arneborg. 1992. “Gården under sandet.
Nye nordboundersøgelser i Vesterbygden.” Grønlandsk
kultur- og samfunds forskning 92: 11–49.
Arge, S. V. 1991. “The landnám in the Faroese.” Arctic
Anthropology 28 (2): 101–120.
Arge, S. V. 2000. “Vikings in the Faeroe Islands.” In Vikings:
The North Atlantic Saga, edited by W. W. Fitzhugh and E.
E. Ward, 154–163. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Arge, S. V. 2008. “The Faroe Islands.” In The Viking World,
edited by S. Brink and N. Price, 579–587. London:
Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Arneborg, J. 1985. “Nordboarkæologiske undersøgelser ved
Kilaarsarfik i nordboernes Vesterbygd.” Forskning/tusaat
i Grønland 2 (1985): 2–9.
Arneborg, J. 2003. “Norse Greenland Archaeology: The
Dialogue Between the Written and the Archaeological
Record.” In Vinland Revisited. The Norse World at the
Turn of the First Millennium. Selected Papers from the
Viking Millennium International Symposium 15-24
September, Newfoundland and Labrador, edited by S. M.
Lewis-Simpson, 15–24. St John’s: Historic Sites
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Arneborg, J. 2008. “The Norse Settlements in Greenland.” In
The Viking World, edited by S. Brink and N. Price, 588–
597. London: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Arneborg, J., and J. Berglund. 1993. “Gården under Sandet.”
Forskning/tusaat i Grønland 4 (1993): 7–19.
Baker, M. 2016. Wood for Woodturners. rev ed. Lewes, East
Sussex: Guild of Master Craftsman Publications.
Bartholin, T. 1979. “The Dating of Coffins and Staves in
Medieval Lund.” In Dendrochronology in Europe, edited
by J. Fletcher, 275–278. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Bay, C. 1997. “Floristic Division and Vegetation Zonation of
Greenland in Relevance to a Circumpolar Arctic
Vegetation Map.” In Proceedings ofthe Second
Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Mapping Workshop,
Arendal, Norway, 19-24 May 1996, edited by S. Walker
and A. C. Lillie, 27–31. Boulder: Institute of Arctic and
Alpine Research. University of Colorado.
Berglund, J. 1998a. “The Excavations at the Farm Beneath
the Sand – Introduction.” In Man, Culture and
Environment in Ancient Greenland - Report on a
Research Program, edited by J. Arneborg and H. C.
Gulløv, 7–13. Copenhagen: Danish Polar Center & the
National Museum of Denmark.
Berglund, J. 2000. “The Farm Beneath the Sand.” In Vikings -
The North Atlantic Saga, edited by W. W. Fitzhugh and E.
E. Ward, 295–303. London: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Berglund, J. 2001. “Omkring dagliglivet på Gården under
Sandet.” Tidsskriftet Grønland 7 (2001): 267–278.
Brisbane, M. A. and J. G. Hather. 2007. Wood use in
Medieval Novgorod. Oxford: Oxbow.
Brouillet, L., F. Coursol, S. J. Meades, M. Favreau, M. Anions,
P. Bélisle, and P. Desmet. 2010. Database of Vascular
Plants of Canada (VASCAN). http://data.canadensys.net/
vascan/.
Bruun, D. 1917. “Oversigt over Nordboruiner I Godthaab-
og Frederikshaab-Distrikter.” Meddelelser om Grønland
56: 57–147.
Caseldine, C., M. Dinnin, D. Hendon, and P. Langdon.
2004. “The Holocene Development of the Icelandic
Biota and its Palaeoclimatic Significance.” In Atlantic
Connections and Adaptations: Economies, Environments
and Subsistence in Lands Bordering the North Atlantic,
12 E. PINTA
edited by R. A. Housely and G. Coles, 182–189. Oxford:
Oxbow.
Charpentier-Ljungqvist, F. 2005. “The Significance of
Remote Resource Regions for Norse Greenland.” Scripta
Islandica 56: 13–54.
Church, M. J., S. V. Arge, K. J. Edwards, P. L. Ascough, J. M.
Bond, G. T. Cook, S. J. Dockrill, et al. 2013. “The Vikings
Were not the First Colonizers of the Faroe Islands.”
Quaternary Science Reviews 77: 228–232.
Comey, M. G. 2007. “Stave-Built Vessels.” In Wood Use in
Medieval Novgorod, edited by M. A. Brisbane and J. G.
Hather, 165–188. Oxford: Oxbow Book.
Dennis, A., P. Foote, and R. Perkins. 2000. Laws of Early
Iceland: Grágás. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba
Press.
Dyke, A. S., and J. M. Savelle. 2000. “Holocene Driftwood
Incursion to Southwestern Victoria Island, Canadian
Arctic Archipelago, and Its Significance to
Paleoceanography and Archaeology.” Quaternary
Research 54 (1): 113–120.
Earwood, C. 1993. Domestic Wooden Artifacts in Britain and
Ireland from Neolithic to Viking Times. Exeter: University
of Exeter Press.
Eggertsson, Ó. 1993. “Origin of the Driftwood on the Coasts
of Iceland: A Dendrochronological Study.” Jökull 43:
15–32.
Eggertsson, Ó. 1994a. “Mackenzie River Driftwood: A
Dendrochronological Study.” Arctic 47 (2): 128–136.
Eggertsson, Ó, and D. Layendecker. 1995. “A
Dendrochronological Study of the Origin of Driftwood
in Frobisher Bay, Baffin Island, N.W.T., Canada.” Arctic
and Alpine Research 27 (2): 180–186.
English, N., J. L. Betancourt, J. S. Dean, and J. Quade. 2001.
“Strontium Isotopes Reveal Distant Sources of
Architectural Timber in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (21):
11891–11896.
Eurola, S. 1971. “The Driftwood of the Arctic Ocean.” Report
from the Kevo Subarctic Research Station 7: 74–80.
Feilberg, J. 1984. “A Phytogeographical Study of South
Greenland. Vascular plants.” Meddelelser om Grønland,
Bioscience 15: 1–72.
Fredskild, B. 1996. “A Phytogeographical Study of the
Vascular Plants of West Greenland (62° 20’-74°00’N).”
Meddelelser om Grønland Bioscience 45: 1–157.
Frei, K. M., A. N. Coutu, K. Smiarowski, R. Harrison, C. K.
Madsen, J. Arneborg, R. Frei, et al. 2015. “Was it for
Walrus? Viking Age Settlement and Medieval Walrus
Ivory Trade in Iceland and Greenland.” World
Archaeology 47 (3): 439–466.
Giddings, J. L. 1940. “The Application of Tree Ring Dates to
Arctic Sites.” Tree-Ring Bulletin 7 (2): 10–14.
Giddings, J. L. 1941. Dendrochronology of Northern Alaska.
University of Arizona Bulletin 7(4), Laboratory of Tree-
Ring Research Bulletin 1.
Giddings, J. L. 1947. “Mackenzie River Delta Chronology.”
Tree-Ring Bulletin 13: 26–29.
Giddings, J. L. 1954. “Tree-Ring Dating in the American
Arctic.” Tree-Ring Bulletin 20 (3/4): 23–25.
Guldager, O., S. S. Hansen, and S. Gleie. 2002. Medieval
Farmsteads in Greenland. The Brattahlid Region
1999–2000. Copenhagen: Danish Polar Center
Publications 9.
Häggblom, A. 1982. “Driftwood in Svalbard as an Indicator
of Sea Ice Conditions.” Geografiska Annaler 64A: 81–94.
Hansen, K. 1966. “Vascular Plants in the Faeroes.” Dansk
Botanisk Arkiv 24 (3): 1–140.
Hather, J. G. 2000. The Identification of the Northern
European Woods: A Guide for Archaeologists and
Conservators. London: Archetype Publications.
Hellmann, L., W. Tegel, Ó Eggertsson, F. Schweingruber, R.
Blanchette, A. V. Kirdyanov, H. Gärtner, and U. Büntgen.
2013a. “On the Importance of Anatomical Classification
in Arctic Driftwood Research.” In TRACE—Tree Rings
in Archaeology, Climatology, and Ecology, edited by G.
Helle, H. Gärtner, W. Beck, I. Heinrich, K. U. Heussner,
A. Müller, and T. Sanders, 160–165. Potsdam:
Conference Proceedings, GFZ Potsdam.
Hellmann, L., W. Tegel, Ó Eggertsson, F. H. Schweingruber,
R. Blanchette, A. V. Kirdyanov, H. Gärtner, and U.
Büntgen. 2013b. “Tracing the Origin of Arctic
Driftwood.” Journal of Geophysical Research:
Biogeosciences 118 (1): 68–76.
Hellmann, L., W. Tegel, J. Geyer, A. V. Kirdyanov, A. N.
Nikolaev, Ó Eggertsson, J. Altman, et al. 2017. “Dendro-
Provenancing of Arctic Driftwood.” Quaternary Science
Reviews 162: 1–11.
Hellmann, L., W. Tegel, A. V. Kirdyanov, Ó Eggertsson, J.
Esper, L. Agafonov, A. N. Nikolaev, et al. 2015. “Timber
Logging in Central Siberia is the Main Source for Recent
Arctic Driftwood.” Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine
Research 47 (3): 449–460.
Ingstad, H., and A. S. Ingstad. 2001. The Viking Discovery of
America: The Excavation of a Norse Settlement in L’Anse
aux Meadows, Newfoundland. New York: Checkmark
Books.
Ingvarson, F. 1903. “Om drifveden I Norra Ishafvet.”
Ventenskaps. Akad. Handligar 37 (1): 1–84.
Ingvarson, F. 1910. Die Treibhölzer auf den Ellemere-Land.
Report of the Second Norwegian Arctic Expedition in
the “Fram” 1898-1902. 24, Videnskabs-Selskabet I
Kristiania, 57 pp.
Jóhansen, J. 1985. Studies in the Vegetational History of the
Faroe and Shetland Islands. Tórshavn: Annales Societatis
Scientiarum Faeroensis Supplementum XI.
Keller, C. 2010. “Furs, Fish, and Ivory: Medieval Norsemen at
the Arctic Fringe.” Journal of the North Atlantic 3 (1): 1–23.
Kilby, K. 1990. The Cooper and His Trade. Fresno, CA:
Linden Publishing.
King’s Mirror (Speculum Regale – Konungs Skuggsjá), trans.
by Larson, L.M., 1917, London, Humphrey Milfort.
Ledger, P. M., K. J. Edwards, and J. E. Schofield. 2014. “A
Multiple Profile Approach to the Palynological
Reconstruction of Norse Landscapes in Greenland’s
Eastern Settlement.” Quaternary Research 82 (1): 22–37.
Madsen, C. K. 2014. “Pastoral Settlement, Farming, and
Hierarchy in Norse Vatnahverfi, South Greenland.” PhD
diss., University of Copenhagen.
Malmros, C. 1990. “Viking Age Wood Resources at
Argisbrekka, Faroe Islands.” Norwegian Archaeological
Review 23 (1-2): 86–92.
Malmros, C. 1994. “Exploitation of Local, Drifted and
Imported Wood by the Vikings on the Faroe Islands.”
Botanical Journal of Scotland 46 (4): 552–558.
McGovern, T. H., T. Amorosi, S. Perdikaris, and J. Woolett.
1996. “Vertebrate Zooarchaeology of Sandnes V51:
Economic Change at a Chieftain’s Farm in West
Greenland.” Arctic Anthropology 33 (2): 94–121.
Meades, S. J., G. H. Stuart, and L. Brouillet. 2000. Annotated
Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Newfoundland and
Labrador. http://www.digitalnaturalhistory.com/.
Mehler, N., and Ó Eggertsson. 2006. Gerðfræði tréíláta frá
Stóruborg - Lokaskýrsla. Unpublished Report. Reykjavík:
Fornleifastofnun Íslands.

Mille, P. 1989. “Les techniques de travail du bois au Moyen
Âge - étude du mobilier domestique de la fouille de
Charavines-Colletière” [Woodworking Techniques in
the Middle Ages. Domestic Artifacts from Charavines-
Colletière], MA diss., École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales.
Mooney, D. E. 2013. “The Use and Control of Wood
Resources in Viking Age and Medieval Iceland.” PhD
diss., University of Aberdeen.
Mooney, D. E. 2016a. “An Archaeobotanical Perspective on
Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Reykjavík.” In Objects,
Environment and Everyday Life in Medieval Europe, edi-
ted by B. Jervis, L. Broderick, and I. Grau-Sologestoa,
41–65. Turnhout: Brepols.
Mooney, D. E. 2016b. “A ‘North Atlantic Island Signature’ of
Timber Exploitation: Evidence From Wooden Artefact
Assemblages From Viking Age and Medieval Iceland.”
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 280–289.
Mooney, D. E. 2016c. “Examining Possible Driftwood Use in
Viking Age Icelandic Boats.” Norwegian Archaeological
Review 49 (2): 156–176.
Morris, C. A. 2000. Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Wood
and Woodworking in Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval
York. York: Council for British Archaeology.
Nash, S. E. 2000. “James Louis Giddings’ Archaeological
Tree-Ring Dating in the American Arctic: A Forgotten
Legacy.” Arctic Anthropology 37 (1): 60–78.
The Norse Discoveries of America, by Reeves A.M., N.L.
Beamish and R.B. Anderson, 1906, at sacred-texts.com
[online].
Pollard, M., C. Batt, B. Stern, and S. M. M. Young. 2007.
Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology. Cambridge
Manuals in Archaeology, 404. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reynolds, A. C., J. L. Betancourt, J. Quade, P. Jonathan-
Patchett, J. S. Dean, and J. Stein. 2005. “87Sr/86Sr
Sourcing of Ponderosa Pine Used in Anasazi Great
House Construction at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.”
Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (7): 1061–1075.
Roussell, A. 1936. “Sandnes and the Neighboring Farms.”
Meddelelser om Grønland 88 (2): 5–232.
Roussell, A. 1941. “Farms and Churches in the Mediaeval
Norse Settlements of Greenland.” Meddelelser om
Grønland 89 (1): 1–354.
The Saga of the Greenlanders, trans. by Kunz K., 1997,
Penguin Books.
View publication stats
ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 13
Schmid, M. M. E., D. Zori, E. Erlendsson, C. Batt, B. N.
Damiata, and J. Byock. 2018. “A Bayesian Approach to
Linking Archaeological, Paleoenvironmental and
Documentary Datasets Relating to the Settlement of
Iceland (Landnám).” The Holocene 28 (1): 19–33.
Schoch, W., I. Heller, F. H. Schweingruber, and F. Kienast.
2004. Wood Anatomy of Central European Species.
http://www.woodanatomy.ch.
Schweingruber, F. H. 1990. Microscopic Wood Anatomy.
Eidgenössische Anstalt für das Forstliche Versuchswesen.
Schweingruber, F. H. 2007. Wood Structure and
Environment. Berlin: Springer.
Seaver, K. 1996. The Frozen Echo: Greenland and the
Exploration of North America, ca A.D. 1000-1500.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Shaw, J. D. 2012. “Economies of Driftwood: Fuel Harvesting
Strategies in the Kodiak Archipelago.” Études/Inuit/
Studies 36 (1): 63–88.
Smiarowski, K. 2010. “E172 Tatsip Ataa Midden Excavation
2009 & 2010 Preliminary Excavation Report” (unpub-
lished NORSEC IPY field report). New York: Hunter
College.
Steelandt, S. 2014. “Disponibilité et exploitation des
ressources ligneuses par les paléoesquimaux et les Inuit
sur la côte ouest du Nunavik (Québec, Canada).”
[Availability and Exploitation of Wooden Resources by
Paleoeskimos and Inuit Populations on the Western
Coast of Nunavik (Québec, Canada).] PhD diss.,
Université de Rennes 1.
Thorláksson, H. 2000. “The Icelandic Commonwealth
Period.” In Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga, edited by
W. W. Fitzhugh and E. I. Ward, 175–185. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Vésteinsson, O. 2000. “The Archaeology of landnám.” In
Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga, edited by W. W.
Fitzhugh and E. I. Ward, 164–174. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Wallace, B. 1991. “L’Anse aux Meadows, Gateway to
Vinland.” Acta Archaeologica 61: 166–198.
Wallace, B. 2005. “The Norse in Newfoundland: L’Anse aux
Meadows and Vinland.” Newfoundland Studies 19 (1): 5–43.
Wallace, B. 2010. “L’Anse aux Meadows, Leif Eriksson’s
Home in Vinland.” Journal of the North Atlantic Special
Volume 2: 118–129.
Westphal, F. 2006. Die Holzfunde von Haithabu.
Neumünster: K. Wachholtz.