{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024844720496894408, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008122312470138558, 'mean_word_length': 5.307228915662651, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cereal cultivation in east-central Jutland during the Iron Age, 500 BC–AD 1100

This article aims at presenting a cereal cultivation history for the Iron Age (500 BC–AD 1100) in east-central Jutland (Vejle and Århus County). The developments in cereal cultivation are presented based on recent investigations of material from the Iron Age sites of Gedved Vest and Kristinebjerg Øst, as well as a compilation of 10 previously analysed sites. The combined data show that barley (Hordeum vulgare) was the dominant cereal throughout the period, with a seemingly rapid shift from naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var nudum) to hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var vulgare) around the year 1 BC/AD. Rye (Secale cereale) is present in archaeobotanical assemblages throughout the period, but secure evidence of its cultivation exist only from the end of the second century AD onward. From the fourth century AD onward, the record indicates that rye may have been utilised as a dominant crop alongside barley. The cultivation of subdominant cereals, hulled wheats (Triticum dicoccum/spelta/monococcum), naked bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) and oat (Avena sativa), is also discussed. A reappearance of naked barley during the fourth to sixth century AD is also elaborated upon. Agricultural strategies are assessed based on the material and an interpretation is put forward that cultivation from the fifth century BC to at least the third century AD took place on manured, spring sown fields, which were slowly rotated between cultivation and fallow. The shift toward crop-rotation of barley and rye is also investigated; tenuous evidence of which are dated to the late second century AD and secure evidence occurring from the ninth century onward. The article also addresses issues of archaeobotanical interpretation, and a way of increasing the resolution of archaeobotanical investigations is illustrated by examples from Gedved Vest where plant macrofossil analysis was combined with geochemical (phosphate analysis and analysis of soil organic matter) and geophysical (magnetic susceptibility) methods.