Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-jhf8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T10:23:03.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Womb Politics: The Pregnant Body and Archaeologies of Absence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2025

Marianne Hem Eriksen*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Rd, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
Katherine Marie Olley
Affiliation:
School of English, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Brad Marshall
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Rd, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
Emma Tollefsen
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Rd, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
*
Corresponding author: Marianne Hem Eriksen; Email: m.h.eriksen@le.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pregnancy encompasses core socio-political issues: kinship, demography, religion, gender and more. In any society, the ontology of the pregnant body and the embryo-fetus holds core existential concerns. Is a pregnant body one or two beings? When does personhood begin? Yet pregnancy is still a marginal topic in archaeology and its onto-political consequences have scarcely been raised. It would be ludicrous to claim that pregnancy or childbirth is part of the grand narratives of prehistory. Also in scholarship centring theoretical perspectives on the body and personhood the pregnant body is absent. This article poses fundamental questions of the body-politics of pregnancy. We develop concepts from material feminism, medical ethics and philosophy to interrogate pregnancy and provide a case study to demonstrate how these concepts can work in practice from the Viking Age. The questions posed, however, are not limited to the Viking period. Our overall objective is to centre pregnancy as a philosophical and political concern in archaeology writ large. We develop new thinking and language to this end, which can be used to examine the politics of pregnancy in other periods and regions. Ultimately, we discuss the absence-making of pregnant bodies from our sources as well as from archaeological discourse.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Figure 0

Table 1. Old Norse terminology for pregnancy and labour; excluding terms with earliest attestations in manuscripts post c. 1400. The table is compiled from The Dictionary of Old Norse Prose and is not exhaustive. *Counts compiled by BP for phrases not specifically indexed in ONP.

Figure 1

Figure 1. The Aska figurine. (a) Full object en face and (b) closeup of head/face, showing the potential clover-shaped nose guarded helmet (both Ola Myrin, Historiska Museet (CC BY 4.0)); (c) Dino-Lite close up of protruding belly in profile (BODY-POLITICS).

Figure 2

Table 2. Fourteen possible motherfetus burials identified from VA cemeteries across the burial record of Scandinavia and the Viking diaspora. Adult ages given in years-at-death; fetal and neonate ages given in weeks of gestational age (w.g.a.); infant ages given in months since birth (utilizing metric methods in Schaefer et al.2009). G=graves; I=individuals; F=females; M=males; S=non-adults (including juveniles, aged 12–18 years); Inhum.=inhumations; Crem.=cremations *Osteologically analysed by E. Tollefsen/BODY-POLITICS (following Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994). **Remains believed to have been lost since excavation.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Photos and plans of potential motherfetus burials. (a–b) Grave 294 and 228, Kopparsvik, after Toplak (2016); (c) Grave 35a, Fjälkinge (interpretative drawing by Matt Hitchcock based on Helgesson 1996); (d–e) Grave WG and XJ, Galgedil (photographs from Odense Bys Museer). (All reproduced with kind permission.)

Figure 4

Figure 3. Burial plan of osteologically sexed man with neonate remains between his thighs, grave BG, Kaagården. (Image: Grøn et al. (1994, 65)/Langelands Museum with kind permission, digitized by Emma Tollefsen.)