?????????????????, ed. by Jan Klápště & Petr Sommer, Ruralia, IX (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), Pp. ??–??.

FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.1.100158

Håkansson, Beyond the Archetypes. Social Hierarchies in Rural Medieval Halland ??–??

Big bang, lordship or inheritance? Changes in the settlement structure on the threshold of the Merovingian Period,

South-Eastern Norway

Crisis, Herrschaft oder Vererbung? Veränderungen in der Siedlungsstruktur an der Schwelle der Merowingerzeit, Süd-Ost-Norwegen

Crise, la seigneurie ou d'un héritage? Changements dans la structure de règlement sur le seuil de l'époque mérovingienne,

du Sud-Est de la Norvège

Frode Iversen

Introduction

Between 500–700 AD, settlement structure in Scan-dinavia changed radically. More and more abandoned settlements have been discovered, including in the central arable farmlands where they were previously unknown. It has not been fully understood what has caused this large-scale abandonment, but several hy-potheses have been proposed. In this paper, I examine these hypotheses more closely, drawing upon archaeo-logical evidence from settlement sites in eastern Nor-way that have not been included and studied in this line of discussion so far. The more traditional ‘crisis hypothesis’ is evaluated against what I have termed as the ‘lordship’ and the ‘inheritance’ hypotheses, ap-proached both from a macro and micro perspective.

In the administrative region of the Cultural Museum of History in Oslo (CHM), a total of 139 sites produc-ing evidence of 450 houses have been excavated as of 2010 (Fig. 1). Almost half are located in the lowlands, the co-called claylands of the counties Østfold, Vest-fold and Akershus, and not the least the Ra in Østfold, Romerike and in the low-lying rural areas close to the Ra in Vestfold (Bårdseth 2007; Gjerpe 2008; Martens 2007; Mjærum – Gjerpe 2012a; 2012b). Only a few exca-vations have been carried out in the valleys, woodlands and the mountain areas in the south-eastern part of Norway because of less development pressure.

Before 1990, most Scandinavian research on pre-historic settlements and farmscapes were based on fossilised house-foundations and fi eld systems, as they are usually deserted and preserved in marginal environments, especially in the southern part of Nor-way. (e.g. Myhre 1972; Pedersen 1990) (Fig. 2). A widely held explanation has been that the abandoned farm-steads represented a periphery phenomenon caused by a contraction of settlements. The theories used to

explain these changes have been related to settlements stagnation, a decrease in population or plagues. In contrast to this view, 75 per cent of the now known sites in the south-eastern region of Norway have been investigated since 1990, which makes me ask: can the image of settlement crisis and stagnation be main-tained when considered using the new evidence from recent excavations?

New research in Scandinavia has provided valuable knowledge on the spatial organisation of households, farmsteads and agrarian landscapes (e.g. Ahlkvist 2002; Edblom 2004; Streiffert 2005; Söderberg 2005), as well as on the relations between sites and settle-ments in a wider perspective (e.g. Fabech – Ringtved 1999; Carlie 1999; Göthberg 2000; Helgesson 2002). It is generally agreed upon by Scandinavian archaeolo-gists that the settlement pattern went through major changes on the threshold of the Meronvingian Period. The reasons, however, are contested.

Three hypotheses

The ‘crisis hypothesis’ has been further developed and elaborated in recent research by Bo Gräslund (2007). In this context he has looked more closely at the phenomena Fimbul and Ragnarok referred to in mythi-cal accounts and verse, such as Gylfaginning and Ka-leva. He also fi nds arguments using written sources from Late Antiquity and China for placing the start of a climatic crisis to 536AD and lasting several years, which is also supported by scientifi c evidence. Between March 536AD and September 537AD, two summers al-legedly were ‘lost’, which resulted in a long continuous cold spell (Gräslund 2007, 104 f.). This view is support-ed by abnormally high quantities of sulphates found

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

2 RURALIA IX

??–??

Fig.1. Excavated settlement sites in South-Eastern Norway per 2010. N=139. Data from MCHs settlement research group (see acknowledgement). Map: Frode Iversen.

3RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

in the East Antarctic ice cap (540+/–17 years) and in Greenland (534+/–2 years), which has been interpreted as traces caused by a volcanic eruption or an asteroid impact. Dendrochronological evidence from Europe, Asia and South America shows diminished growth in the years after 536AD. This suggests that the crisis seems to have had a profound global impact, and may signify a temperature drop of 4–5 degrees Celsius in the Northern hemisphere of Scandinavia. Recent stud-ies of European climatic development also support this view (Büngten et al. 2011; Zachrisson 2011, 145). Analy-sis of pollen samples suggest an growth of vegetation in the cultural landscape and increased forestation in the Middle- and Northern Europe during the last dec-ades of the 6th century.

The hypothesis Gräslund presents is fascinating. One single catastrophic event sets off a global crisis – one factor, a big bang. The crisis might have been enhanced by the Justinian plague and thus created extreme conditions. The results were population cri-sis and destruction en masse in liminal areas of agri-cultural land in the North. The impact was especially profound in settlements in colder climatic zones, such as Scandinavia. Gräslund links the abandonment of farms during the Iron Age to this crisis (Fig. 2), but does not provide any in-depth analysis of when these settlements were abandoned or how they relate to the surrounding agricultural landscape. The available evi-dence does not indicate a long-lasting climatic crisis. The question is, however, if this climatic crisis did have an impact on the settlement pattern to such ex-tent as Gräslund presumes. More accurate dating with regard to the time of the abandonment to the decades after 536AD would perhaps strengthen Gräslund’s hy-pothesis. This in turn would present a foundation for a discussion concerning the extent of the crisis and its consequences for settlement layout.

The so-called ‘lordship’ hypothesis that started to gain support in the 1990s, is based on a process-ori-ented model that ties landscape and settlement organi-sation to the development of petty kingdoms and elites holding larger estates. Previously, it was argued that Germanic prehistoric societies were almost exclusively made up of free farmers and families of equal standing. The so-called Gemeinfreie-thesis is now outdated. Today, this society is considered as hierarchically organised, and with large estate owners (Rösener 1995; T. Iversen 1997; Skre 1998; F. Iversen 2008; 2009). The origin and the development of systems of landownership in Scan-dinavia has, however, been poorly understood.

The question is whether these abandoned settle-ments are connected to the emergence of new elites who reorganised the landscape, as Dagfi nn Skre (1998) and Bjørn Myhre (2002) have proposed for Norway. Similar models have been discussed for Sweden (Zachrisson

2011, 144). Elites have come and gone through history. One might consider a model based on a reorganisa-tion of settlements in central areas and lordship-driven clearances in the periphery during the Merovingian and Viking Periods.

Studies concerning settlement layout surrounding the high-status site of Gamla Uppsala have shown a signifi cant change around 600 AD (Göthberg 2007, 442). Similar changes have been observed in Östergöt-land near Linköping and on sites in Småland, South Sweden (Ericsson 2001; Petersson 2011, 251). While farmsteads were relocated, the arable fi elds were con-tinuously used (Petersson 2006, 32). These fi nds sub-stantiate a model that implies that minor farms were abandoned for the prospect and establishment of larg-er nucleated settlements (Myhre 2002; Zachrisson 2011, 144). In British research, the so-called manoralisation and development of open-fi eld systems, has also been a main topic of discussion (Reynolds 1999).

Rich monumental burials have also been taken as in-dicators of a concentration of power and the emergence of new elites in Eastern Norway during the Meroving-ian Period (Myhre 1992; Gansum 1995). Rich graves in the so-called Åker complex also emerged around 600 AD (cf. Martens, this volume). Terje Gansum (1995), who has examined the large mounds in Vestfold, found that although there is approximately the same number of large mounds dated prior to the 600 AD as after, the earliest are more scattered in the landscape. The later mounds are generally bigger and often concentrated around archaeologically documented power centres, such as Borre, Sem and Gokstad, and indicate nucle-ated power during the Late Iron Age.Similar perspec-tives have been discussed for other regions in Norway and Sweden, using large mounds and rich graves as points of reference (cf. Iversen 2008, 76; Bratt 2008). It remains to be seen, then, if the abandoned settlements can be connected to the establishment of large estates surrounding such power centres.

A third, and less discussed hypothesis emphasises changes in hereditary rights from primogeniture to partible inheritance. Torun Zachrisson (1994; 2012) has discussed the impact of allodial rights in relation to the organisation of Iron Age communities. A ‘fi ve-genera-tion rule’ seems to characterise land inheritance dur-ing Late Iron Age, according to runic inscriptions from Scandinavia (Brink 2002, 103ff). It has been pointed out that the last stem in the older runic alphabet the futhark is called ‘odel’, which has its origins from Ro-man times (Robberstad 1967, 493, Erikson – Strid 1991, 24; Zachrisson 1994, 219). In a system with partible in-heritance large estates would slowly be divided among multiple descendants, while primogeniture would have the effect of keeping large estates united by the control of the elite.

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

4 RURALIA IX

??–??

We do not know much about hereditary rights in Scandinavia during Early Iron Age but Tacitus offers some insight concerning the Germanic areas in 98 AD (Ch. 20, 32). He seems to assume primogeniture as the main rule of succession amongst the people called Tencteri (Germ, ch. 32), located near the Rhine, close to today Köln and Bonn. By law, slaves, house and land was inherited by the eldest son. But the horse, ac-cording to Tacitus, was inherited by the son who was considered the best warrior, regardless of age. By em-phasising this as an exception to the rule, Tacitus illus-trates the strong warrior ideal amongst the Tencteri.

There are, however, methodological problems in-volved by using Tacitus as an analogy for early heredi-tary laws in Scandinavia. Primogeniture is not known in so-called provincial laws, recorded in the 1100s and onwards. The main principle was partible inheritance with a gradual system of defi ned classes of heirs. As a general rule land was inherited equally among sons, and movables were split equally among daughters. Ac-cording to the Gulating law of Western Norway, daugh-ters could also inherit peripheral farmland in the out-skirts (Gjerdåker 2001, 15; Kleven 2001, 64–71). The law has certain and distinct stipulations concerning the division of land. If no other methods were found, the infi elds could physically be divided in two halves, a solution that easily would have caused separate settle-ment layouts without shared ownership of the infi elds (Stylegar 2005).

So far, I have presented one event-oriented hypoth-esis and two process-oriented hypotheses. The hy-

pothesis concerning a shift in hereditary laws can be linked to the ‘lordship’ hypothesis. The kings’ follow-ers may have gained more importance with the emer-gence of new petty kingdoms. Warriors who did not own land themselves may have achieved better con-ditions through their expanding military and politi-cal role. The question if farmsteads and their houses were abandoned as a consequence of the division of infi elds and the establishment of new farmsteads, still remains without an answer. This issue represents two contradicting explanations. On one hand, we are faced with the possibility of depopulation in a time of crisis. On the other hand, there is also signs of population increase and intensifi cation of land use, including di-vision of farms. A central issue is related to time.

In the following I give a brief overview of excavated settlement sites in south-eastern Norway. The aim is to identify certain traits in the material that can illu-minate the hypotheses and also to demonstrate the potential the archaeological material has to recognise changes in land use and peasant society.

Methods and material

The large-scale excavation of settlements at For-sandmoen in Rogaland 1984–1993 was important in many respects, not least that a new generation of Nor-wegian archaeologists developed competence in meth-ods concerning top soil stripping (Løken – Pilø – Hem-dorff 1996; Løken 2001). A new and more effi cient way of studying agricultural settlement in the lowlands of

Fig. 2. Bo Gräslund has seen the many abandoned farms in Scandinavia in the context of a comprehensive climate crisis and the volcanic eruption in 536 AD. The farm Hanaland in Time Jæren was abandoned in the Migration period and taken up again before year 1000, before it was fi nally deserted in the late Middle Ages. Photo: Myhre 2002, drawing: Myhre 1972.

5RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

Norway was introduced, and adopted for use in the many rescue excavations that increased in number in the 90s and the new millennium. Every year between 100 and 150 excavations are carried out in Norway. About 50–75 per cent of these are excavated by topsoil stripping and on sites that usually include traces of settlements.

The Museum of Cultural History of Oslo is the larg-est excavator in Norway. Its district covers ten out of 19 counties and 55 per cent of the farms in Norway (30,880 of 55,688 farms, according to the survey of Norske Gaardsnavne). By 2010, excavations of prehis-toric house sites have been carried out at 132 farms, which represent 0.4 per cent of the total number of farms, including 139 sites with traces of 450 houses. The ratio of houses to sites varies from 1 to 25. My study here concerns the settlements at nucleus of farms (Norw. tun) that have been in use through gen-erations before they were abandoned. I therefore dis-tinguish between tun and a house plot. A tun is defi ned as a settlement that comprises several house plots, preferably three or more. Abandoned houses are also found in the outskirts of larger historically known tun (i.e. Hesby, Vestfold) and are, as such, more uncertain as indicators of abandoned farms.

About 64 per cent of the material, 89 out of 139 sites include traces of only one or two houses (roughly 60 and 29 sites). Their relevance as a source for this study is therefore limited. Twenty-two sites, about 16 per cent, have traces of three or four houses. I conse-quently regard these as more representative. The re-maining 20 per cent, 28 sites, have traces of fi ve or more house plots. Fifteen of the sites have fi ve or six houses and 13 sites have traces of seven or more house plots, and can be recognised as farmsteads that were abandoned. These should therefore have a potential of shedding light on the processes behind the abandon-ment, although the archaeological material as such is relatively modest.

Different methodological steps have been taken to approach the three hypotheses. The time of aban-donment is a key element of the fi rst hypothesis. It is, however, diffi cult to determine the exact time the last house in the tun went out of use. Jes Martens have dis-cussed such problems thoroughly in the case of south-ern Kjølberg in Østfold, where four longhouses may represent four generations at the same farm (Martens 2007, 96–98, 104). The dating is based on the latest C-14 date of constructive features, such as roof-bearing poles, by which the age of the wood itself is measured. Alternatively, dating can be provided by secondary de-posited material with a relatively short time horizon, e.g. a single charred grain. Such dates do not always correspond, even when they are taken within the same house plot. Haio Zimmermann (1998, 60–62) suggests

that pole-built houses had a life expectancy of 25–50 years, but under optimal conditions considerably long-er. Material from south-eastern Norway suggests, how-ever, that the houses seldom can be dated more exact-ly than within a timeframe of 100–200 years (Gjerpe – Østmo 2008, 134). This makes it diffi cult to establish a fi ner chronological time sequence with regard to the abandonment of farmsteads.

The sites within this study are dated to the following periods; Roman Age, Migration Period, Merovingian Period and the Viking Age. The absence of Meroving-ian Period houses in already established farmsteads is taken as an indicator of abandonment. The three-aisle longhouse with the division of living space and an area for animal husbandry is a common feature through-out the Iron Age, but becomes gradually less common during the Viking Age (Martens 2007, 102f). In the Museum’s administrative region, only nine three-aisle longhouses have been C-14 dated to the Merovingian Period, as opposed to fi fteen to the Migration Period by 2002 (ibid.).

Hypothesis 2 emphasises the social context and his-torical known settlement structure. So far, the excavat-ed material has been discussed only to a limited extent and incorporated in a ‘social landscape’ perspective, incorporating the methods of historical archaeology. In Norway such methods have especially been developed since 1995 at the University of Bergen in the research environment around Professor Ingvild Øye. The stud-ies combine interdisciplinary methods, using written, archaeological and cultural geographical evidence in a long-term perspective that includes and emphasises the whole agricultural landscape and the social and eco-nomical relations between the settlements (Øye 2002a; 2002b; Iversen 2008). The methods have only to a lim-ited extent been applied in rescue archaeology, that of-ten focuses on the technical and architectural aspects of the houses and less on their context of the historical landscape and farm land (e.g. Diinhoff 2011).

Position is a key feature when exploring hypothesis 3 related to possible hereditary divisions. Here, I have assessed the sites by taking into account so-called division names, which represents another new meth-odological approach. Out of 56,688 farms recorded in Oluf Rygh’s voluminous compilation, Norske Gaard-navne (1897–1936), altogether 7150 farms have prefi x-es, such as northern, southern, eastern, western, big, little, upper, lower etc., and thus an indicator of divided farms. An abandoned farmstead situated by a bound-ary, e.g. between two historic farms carrying division names, may also indicate that such a process have taken place. In earlier research, farm-names have been considered as a reliable source for understanding the development of prehistoric farms. Together with Mag-nus Olsen’s work Ættegård og Helligdom (1926), Rygh’s

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

6 RURALIA IX

??–??

work revolutionised place-name research and laid the foundation for later settlement studies. With addition to chronological layers, the toponymic material also refl ected different social levels. Thus it was a useful source, but also had its limitations. New archaeologi-cal information about prehistoric settlement offers, however, new and more direct ways of assessing the same material.

It is unclear how far back it is possible to trace di-vision names. They appear in written sources around the 13th century. In the eastern part of Norway, Bishop Øystein’s cadastre, the so-called Red Book, lists such names systematically for church property from the 1390s. The Red Book also refers to abandoned medi-eval farms with division names. A study on prehistoric graves located close to farm boundaries in Vestfold, includes farms with division names, and may indicate such processes in the Iron Age (Ødegaard 2007; 2010).

The question then is if these processes could be connected to elites who were reorganising the land-scape and emergence of new hereditary laws, and be recognized as indicators of intensifi cation and popu-lation increase. Such names occur most frequently in the counties Vestfold and Akershus that also happen to be the areas that have the highest number of aban-doned farmsteads. More than 30 per cent of the farms in Vestfold, 24 per cent in Østfold and 22 per cent in Akershus have names that imply divisions (Fig. 3). The percentage of division names decreases the further west and north of these regions one looks. This may

suggest that the physical farm division was more com-mon in central areas of Eastern Norway than in other parts of Norway (Lunden 1969, 93; Stylegar 2005).

I have chosen two sites in Vestfold for closer exami-nation to assess the validity of the hypotheses with an emphasis on the relation between the sites and the his-torically known settlement patterns. How were these settlements situated in the landscape when compared to the historical farms, the organization of the infi elds and outfi elds in the Middle Ages and farm bounda-ries? Both sites have been excavated as part of the E18 road project led by the archaeologist, Lars Erik Gjerpe. Site 1 (Auli) was excavated in 2009–10 by Line Grind-kåsa, and site 2 (vestre Ringdal) by Marit Østmo in 2005. The excavation results are published by Gjerpe (2008) and Mjærum – Gjerpe (2012a; 2012b).

Site 1 Auli is located close to the historically known royal villa of Sem. The farm belonged to the St Olav’s monastery in Tønsberg before 1390. Several scholars, among them Halldis Hobæk (2008), have convincingly argued that Auli prior to the foundation of this mon-astery in 12th century was part of a large royal estate consisting of nearly fi fty subordinated farms under the manor of Sem. The site is therefore located in a distinct ‘lordship’ environment. Site 2 is located in an area that had many freeholders during the late Middle Age (Ødegaard 2007, 73; 2010). The reason why these two farmsteads were abandoned will be assessed and discussed against the main tendencies in the source material.

Fig. 3. Percent of Farms with division-names per county in Norway: N = 7150 of 56,688. Based on data from Norske Gaardnavne. The data from South and North Trøndelag are not polite.

7RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

Results

Fig. 4 shows the average number of abandoned sites per century and reveals an interesting pattern. It demonstrates that there is a four to six times greater frequency of farm abandonment during the Migration Period than in the Iron Age as a whole. When review-ing the Iron Age and Middle Age, there is a pattern of three (Merovingian Period) and up to fi ve and six (Mid-dle Ages) abandoned settlements each century. This number also includes small sites. The Migration Pe-riod stands out, with a total number of 19 sites per century (38 out of 139 sites). This is further enhanced by a closer look at the sites that contain traces of fi ve houses or more. Approximately 16–17 of 28 sites that have this attribute were abandoned during the Migra-tion Period. Five were abandoned during the Middle Ages, four in Pre-Roman Iron Age and two to three were abandoned during the Merovingian Period. Trac-es of larger abandoned settlements dated to the Roman Period and Viking Age have not yet been uncovered. Six settlements from the Migration Age are located in Akershus and four in Østfold. Similar types have been found in the county of Vest-Agder, two in Vestfold and one in each of the counties of Buskerud, Hedmark and Telemark.

As for settlement continuity, approximately 40 out of 56 sites (71 per cent) have houses dated both to the Roman Period and the Migration Period, including small sites. However, large settlements show continu-ity through the Roman Period to Migration Period. A total of 24 out of 27 settlements (89 per cent) from the Roman Period (with three or more houses) were settled also in the Migration Period, and 19 out of 20 settle-ments having fi ve houses or more (95 per cent).

These fi gures are in contrast to the development in the transition phase to the Merovingian Period with very slight signs of continuity. Only three of nineteen settlements that have traces of fi ve or more houses, and settled in the Migration Period, show later activity. This is especially true for Moi in Vest-Agder with con-tinuity through the Middle Ages (Reitan 2009). This is also the case for southern Kjølberg in Østfold (Martens 2007), but more uncertain at the site vestre Ringdal in Vestfold (Gjerpe – Østmo 2008). The fi ve longhouses at southern Kjølberg are located close to the present farm. Finds dated to the Viking Age and Middle Ages might suggest that the original settlements have been moved to its present location (Martens 2007, 96). The longhouse that signifi es the latest phase at western Ringdal in Vestfold (House II) has been C14-dated to Early Merovingian Period or Late Migration Period (Gjerpe – Østmo 2008, 57). Charred grain, considered a secondary deposition in two roof-bearing postholes, has been used to date the house. The remaining twelve longhouses at western Ringdal have been dated to the Roman Period and Migration Period, and the settle-ments seem to have terminated by the end of the Mi-gration Period, c. 600 AD. Thus, it is only Moi in Vest-Agder that can prove continuity in settlement with any certainty through the Merovingian Period. This suggests that many settlements were abandoned dur-ing the Migration Period in Eastern Norway. A similar pattern has been identifi ed in other parts of Norway, based on fossilised houses in marginal areas. Now this trend has also been recognised in central agricultural areas in Eastern Norway as well.

But what about sites at farms with division names? Altogether 58 out of 139 sites (42 per cent) are located at such farms. In Østfold this is the case for 20 out

Fig. 4. N = 139. Abandoned sites per century (2400 BC–1500 AD), South-Eastern Norway. Data, see acknowl-edgment.

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

8 RURALIA IX

??–??

of 31 sites, in Vestfold 11 out of 23 (including Nordby), and in Akershus 15 out of 30 sites. In total, 46 out of 84 sites (55 per cent) are located at such farms in these three counties. This seems to be a recurrent feature. The regular frequency of such names is 26 per cent (2258 of 8795 farms). In the other counties in East-ern Norway, the numbers are too small to draw parallel assumptions. Closer assessment of sites dated to the Iron Age shows that 44 per cent (38 out of 88 farms) are located on farms with division names. The high-est frequency is related to Pre-Roman Iron Age (55 per cent). The material from the Merovingian Period shows 60 per cent, but is fairly modest as it only counts fi ve sites. The sites dated to the Migration Period that by far make up the largest body, appear in 38 per cent on farms that hold such names, including minor sites.

Viking Age 2 of 9 = 22 per centMerovingian period 3 of 5 = 60 per cent Migration period 15 of 39 = 38 per cent (included Vestre Ringdal)Roman Age 7 of 15 = 46 per centPre-Roman Age 11 of 20 = 55 per centSum 38 of 88 = 43 per cent

This demonstrates that a total of ten sites out of 17 larger settlements (59 per cent) that were aban-doned during or prior to the Migration Period, includ-ing western Ringdal, are located at farms that carry division names. This is the case for six settlements from the Migration Period and four from the Pre-Ro-man period.

This suggests that larger abandoned settlements are greatly over-represented at farms that hold division

names. This phenomenon is, however, not limited to the Migration Period. To explore this relation further, two case studies of sites located at such farms will be considered and included in the fi nal discussion.

Results from the case studies

Early in the Migration Period, a large longhouse was built at site 1. It was 40.5 metres long, 9.5 metres wide and covered an area of approximately 380 square metres. It was exceptionally large, but followed the tra-ditional building style of the period, with separate in-ternal sections for living space and holding animal hus-bandry. Signifi cant resources must have gone into the construction. The longhouse was destroyed in a severe fi re around 600 AD. Shortly after, a male was buried in a mound located in the section where the living space in the house had been. The grave goods indicate a war-rior with reasonable wealth and status (C 57449). The location of the inhumation seems to be deliberate and symbolic. The body was laid with the head facing north and furnished with a whole range of weapons, with the exception of a lance (cf. Jørgensen 1999, 164–166; Grindkåsa 2012).The discovery of a brooch plate tells that he was buried with a cape, and most likely a ban-doleer was attached by a so-called skjoldtorn (shield-thorn) brooch, which is a relatively rare fi nd in Nor-wegian contexts. Only eight of such brooches are known from Norway, all of which have been found in the eastern regions, and also from the Åker fi nd (Sol-berg 2000, 192). This type of brooch was more com-mon in Denmark and in Western Europe during the Migration and Merovingian Periods (Koch 1977; Reiss

Fig. 5. Site 1 Auli. Arialphoto, Tom Hei-breen, E18 project, MCH, University of Oslo.

9RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

1994; Grindkåsa 2012). The man was buried with three knives, a double-edged sword with damascus blade, probably an import, and a shield, amongst other arte-facts. The grave also contained the head of a horse and an amulet. The grave goods suggests that a person of a high social standing was buried here and is an early example of a high-status grave, inspired by Continen-tal models, which occurs more frequently during the Merovingian Period.

There are traces of other buildings at the site, indi-cating a settlement. The site then seems to have been transformed to a grave fi eld comprising up to ten mounds. By mid-19th century, more than six grave mounds were still preserved in the landscape (Nicolay-sen 1866, 138) (Fig. 6).

Looking at the topographical situation in the 6th to 7th centuries, when the sea-level was higher, it is clear that the farm territory of the abandoned site was con-strained by two rivers and the sea. This coincides with the historical farm’s boundaries. The site is located exactly where the boundaries of three historical farms met; namely Låne, Auli and Aulerød. All three farms were later parts of the same large estate surround-ing the manor of Sem (see below). The similarity in

the names Auli and Aulerød may signal that the latter was once a part of Auli. The name probably refers to soil condition; Ölfvin, alfr m. gravel, vin, meadow (NG VI, 229). Therefore, the initial division of the farm ter-ritory might have gone between Låne and Auli, and the secondary between Auli and Aulerød. In 1390, the area was split up into seven independent holdings be-longing to the monastery. Auli is recorded as the west-ern, northern and eastern Auli in the Red Book in the 1390s, and Låne as northern, southern and southern-most Låne, while Aulerød was one holding at that time (RIB, 204f). As far as we know, the seven units had in-dividual settlements, as is later recorded (Fig. 6; 7).

Halldis Hobæk has examined the medieval property structure in the area close to the site. The polygons on Fig. 8 represent concentrations of aristocratic, monas-tic and royal land in the late Middle Ages. The largest one is the reconstructed royal land around Sem. It con-sists partly of royal and monastic land. A large estate seems to have been separated from the royal manor and subjected to the monastery of St Olav in Tønsberg during the mid-1100s.

A contemporary saga records that the church of St Mikael situated in Tønsberg in 1190 had landed prop-

Fig. 6. Site 1 Auli. Location compared to the historical settlement structure.

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

10 RURALIA IX

??–??

erty, and the income sustained the monastery of St Olav, indicating an earlier royal ownership. The Church of St Mikael was closely tied to the crown, being a royal chapel. In the 1390s the monastery of St Olav owned a total of 104 farms/or parts of farms in Vestfold (RB, 204ff; Eriksson 1993, 103). The greatest concentration of these was in close proximity to the royal manor Sem. The close ties between the monastic estate and the royal manor seem to have continued through the Mid-dle Age. An account from 1576 shows that peasants at the monastery had to pay duties in labour at the royal manor from ‘from old times’ (NRR II, 192) (Fig. 9).

The renowned Oseberg mound (834 AD) is located at the outskirts of this concentration. Several rich and monumental mounds in the area indicate this as a power centre from at least the beginning of the 9th century. The manor Sem is also recorded in narrative sources as a royal villa allegedly at the time of King Har-ald Hairfair in the late 9th century. The distance from site 1 to the medieval manor house at Sem (Jarlsberg) was 3.5 km. This reconstructed cluster of royal land consisted of c. 50 farms. It stretches from site 1 in the south-west to the Oseberg mound to the north-east and represents a huge concentration of power in this area at least from the Viking Age.

The case seems to provide evidence for a process where one farm territory was split into several minor

holdings. It is diffi cult to date the stages in this proc-ess. One of Norway’s largest estates from the Viking Period and the Middle Ages is situated here. The divi-sion of the farm territory into minor farms may well have been connected to the development of this estate in an early phase. I interpret this accordingly: the Auli farm was divided into to separate units (Låne and Auli) and the settlement was abandoned around 600 AD. A grave-fi eld, that has left traces of about 6–10 graves, was then established and continued in use for some generations. If the farm was split in two units of equal stature, then the grave-fi eld could be linked to two gen-erations of landholders who were buried at the site of their ancestral settlement. This practice could then have lasted for three to fi ve generations, indicated by the number of graves. This corresponds to around 60 to 100 years, with a hypothetically length of each gen-eration of approximately 20 years (Skre 1997).

There are, however, some elements that go against such an interpretation. The name Låne, most likely stems from the word lán, probably meaning rented land (NG VI, 212). Oluf Rygh has proposed that the word lán is connected to the transfer of private land, in the sense of ‘rented land’, meaning land used in exchange for a fee. If this name can be traced back to a primary division, Låne must have been rented land at an ear-ly stage, and thus belonged to a larger landowner. If this is the case, it may perhaps be more likely that the grave-fi eld represents the same line of landholders. In this sense, the placing of the graves close to the farm boundary could have a double symbolic connotation. Besides reminding the people using the land of Låne of their previous landlords, the graves served to con-nect and keep the memory of the ancestral farmstead alive for some generations.

This is not the only example that may illuminate such processes in the landscape in Vestfold, although it is diffi cult to elaborate such a good case as for Auli. The second site, Vestre Ringdal, is located further south (Fig. 10) and was excavated by Mari Østmo in 2005. The settlement consisted of 21 houses: traces of 13 long-houses and eight minor buildings and six graves from Pre-Roman Iron Age and a grave from the Migration Pe-riod. Nearly 30 cooking pits and 19 hearths were also found (Fig. 11). The fi nds (C 55048–C55077) consisted mostly of pottery fragments from both the houses and the graves. At least six of the longhouses are from the Migration Period, but it is diffi cult to determine wheth-er they were used contemporaneously. Gjerpe and Øst-mo suggests that the settlement consisted of perhaps two or three simultaneous holdings during the Migra-tion Period (Gjerpe – Østmo 2008, 134f).

The settlement was abandoned around 600 AD. It was located 120 metres north of the present farm-boundary separating western and eastern Ringdal, as shown on

Fig. 7. Site 1 Auli. Location compared to settlement in 1390 AD. 1) Nor-dre Låne, 2) Søndre Låne, 3) Sønste Låne, 4) Aulerød , 5) Vestre Aulin, 6) Søndre Aulin, 7) Østre Aulin.

11RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

Fig. 8. Concentrations of royal, aristocratic and ecclesiastical land near site 1 in the late Middle ages. After Halldis Hobæk 2008.

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

12 RURALIA IX

??–??

Fig. 9. Concentrations of royal and ecclesiastical land near site 1 (marked with a ring) in the late Middle ages. After Halldis Hobæk 2008.

13RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

Fig. 12. Ringdal was mapped in a scale of 1:4000 in the period 1807–1820 AD (Wasberg 1970, 116), showing four settlements at Ringdal – one at western Ringdal and three at Eastern Ringdal. The northern and south-ern settlements at Eastern Ringdal are much younger settlements and not relevant here. The two presumed farmsteads from the Middle Ages were located a dis-tance of 250 metres apart. The farm is mentioned as upper and lower Ringdal (not eastern or western) in the 1390s (RB, 31) and was, most likely, already physically

divided. The farmstead at eastern Ringdal was situated near a small hill, which fi ts well with the term Upper. In 1647, the holdings had similar rent, which indicates an equal division of the farm. The boundary between the eastern and western units is documented on the map from the 1800s and is the same as it is today. The boundary of the named farm that faces west could be old. A grave fi eld with four stone foundations dated to the Early Iron Age is located just 20 metres from this boundary. Its location in the outfi elds and around

Fig. 11. Site 2, vestre Ringdal. Arial photo, Tom Heibreen, E18 project, MCH, Univer-sity of Oslo.

Fig. 10. The location of the the areas of case studies. Background map from Google Earth.

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

14 RURALIA IX

??–??

125 metres from the closest main road over the Ra, adds strength to the hypothesis that the grave-fi eld was constructed to mark the boundary between the farms Rødbøl and Ringdal (Ødegaard 2007, 77).

The abandoned settlement was located in the for-ested outfi eld area of the 1800s. The path road to the farmstead at western Ringdal about 500 metres to the north passed the abandoned site. The distance to the farmstead at eastern Ringdal was about 700 metres. It is not known how the arable land was organised in the Migration Period, but the site was located in the out-skirts of the infi eld as they are recorded on the map. If this refl ects an earlier situation, it would suggest that the settlement had a good location in the transitional zone of infi eld to outfi eld. Studies of landownership in the region in the Middle Ages, indicate that Ringdal was not a part of a larger medieval estate, like Auli (Ødegaard 2007, 34).

In my view this indicates that the settlement was abandoned because of a split in a larger farm territory, and the establishment of two new separate settlements. It is possible that a so-called odalskifte is relevant to this case. The farm could easily have been split be-tween two brothers without any interference of mano-rial structures. It is therefore likely that the Migration Age farm may have consisted of two units at the time of abandonment. During the Middle Ages the farm consisted of two units with split infi elds and separate settlements. The abandonment may have been a result of a division of farmland territory around 600AD.

Discussion

Research has evolved from focusing on only the farm settlements in the fi rst half of the 1900s, to look-ing at the whole farm territories also as production units, especially from the 1980s onwards, to better understand the economic and social relations between the farm units. Until the 1990s direct evidence of prehistoric settlement in Eastern Norway was scarce (Østmo 1991). Farm names, graves and stray fi nds were the most important sources for early settlement histo-ry. It has been proposed that the strong link between historic farms and pre-historic graves indicated set-tlement continuity (Pedersen 1999, c46). In the 1990s the potential of top soil stripping for the understand-ing of settlement history was recognised. Since then, there has been a steady enlargement of source mate-rial, with a discovery of c. 50 new sites every decade. There is reason to believe that this development will continue. Still, certain tendencies can be observed in the available material already at this stage.

Working with this paper, I have examined the total body of evidence with regard to early settlement in South-East Norway, trying to shed some new light on the three main hypotheses that have been in the fore of discussion in Scandinavian research. The new evi-dence demonstrates that the development in Eastern Norway is far more dynamic than has been presumed. The changes during the transition from Early to Late Iron Age are especially signifi cant.

An assumption with regard to this work is that many abandoned settlements are situated on farms having division names, and that this material has a potential for illuminating processes concerning farm divisions. Overall, the farm divisions may indicate intensifi cation in fi eld structure and settlement. Possible explanations for this could be population increase and new modes of operation, with a shift in balance between animal husbandry and arable cultivation. The quantitatively proven macro conditions have been strengthened by using two more qualitatively oriented case studies on a micro level. They both support a theory that there is a strong connection between abandoned settlements and processes of farm divisions. My review shows that also in East Norway, a trend of abandonment occurs far more frequently during the Migration Period than in the other periods of the Iron Age.

None of the larger abandoned settlements that have been excavated seems to have been abandoned during the Roman Period or Viking Age. They were, however, abandoned both during the Pre-Roman and Migration Periods. Both of the case studies relate to Migration period sites. There are some source critical challenges tied to the dating of the abandonment, but the context of the sites is good. The data implie that the abandon-

Fig. 12. Site 2, Vestre Ringdal, Location compared to the historical set-tlement structure. Background map: Marie Ødegaard 2008.

15RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

ment occurred around 600 AD, and not in the decades following 536 AD. It is uncertain whether these cases are representative, but they do not support Gräslund’s hypothesis. Other hypotheses should therefore be con-sidered.

Site I is located close to what is considered as one of Norway’s largest estates during the Viking Period and Middle Ages. This case study is interesting as it shows that a large building burned down and that a settlement cluster was abandoned. The construction of a grave mound at the site immediately followed this event, in which a weapon-equipped person of high so-cial standing was buried. Over time, this area devel-oped into a grave-fi eld. The abandoned settlement was situated close to the boundary that came to separate three historical farms. In turn, these formed a natu-ral farm territory during the 6th and 7th centuries. In 1390, the area was split into seven smaller units that were all part of a larger estate holding. This could be interpreted as a sign of intensifi cation and reorganisa-tion of the settlement under the auspices of a central landowner. On the other hand, Case 2 shows an equal division of a farm territory. The abandoned settlement consisted of traces of 21 buildings and at least two simultaneous units during the Migration Period. The settlement was therefore most likely moved when the farm was divided.

Could this development have anything to do with a change of hereditary rights? It can be observed that larger settlements were not abandoned during the Ro-man Period. On the other hand, this was the case in Pre-Roman and Migration Periods. The time lapse be-tween these two periods is extensive and the interpre-tation is therefore rather uncertain. Still, it is not un-likely that the division processes during the Migration Period may have been connected to hereditary norms.

Prehistoric farming in Eastern Norway has also been archaeologically examined in recent years. The E18 project in Vestfold has demonstrated the usefulness of combining scientifi c methods with traditional excava-tion of fossil traces of cultivation. Micro-morphologi-cal analyses have shown changes in fertilisation and land exploitation over time. Botanical analyses of wood show, among others, that forests were used as a re-source for gathering fodder. Altogether, the settlements by the Ra were more signifi cant than has previously been understood (Mjærum – Gjerpe 2012a; 2012b). Sev-eral sites indicate, however, decline already during the Migration Period. In Hørdalsåsen there are signs that cultivation terminated towards the end of the Roman period, while pastures expanded during the Migration Period (Mjærum 2012). Traces of cultivation close to the settlement areas at Hesby and Østre Borge, seem to indicate stable settlements from the Bronze age to present times, but also shows a complex development,

with reduced activity during the Migration Period (Goll-wizer 2012; Storrusten – Østmo 2012). This complex development makes it diffi cult to explain the changes using a ‘one-factor’ theory based on a single natural disaster, such as the one in 536 AD (Gjerpe 2012).

The three hypotheses should perhaps be seen ho-listically. If the minor farms were abandoned because of a climatic crisis, it could have caused new grazing lands in dense settled areas like the Ra. An easier ac-cess to manure could have made a more intensive use of arable farming possible, which again resulted in more farms being divided over time. The development is obviously complex and multiple factors need to be assessed to be able to draw any conclusions of cer-tainty. The examined material contains elements that support the crisis hypothesis. It seems likely that a re-organisation of the settlement accelerated at the end of the Migration period or in the early decades of the Merovingian Period. On a practical level, this resulted in, amongst others, a division of farmland. The mate-rial gives few indications of the driving forces that led to such development. It could be about demographic relations, where the potential for grain cultivation was more exploited in areas where this was possible. This could have resulted in a growing surplus and, as such, created a foundation for emerging elites and minor kingships. Changes of hereditary rights may then have been a strategy that was motivated by and stimulated to this desired development of both larger estates and split up settlements and farmland.

Summary

This article discusses the archaeologically excavated settlement sites in South-Eastern Norway in relation to three hypotheses under discussion in Scandinavian ar-chaeology. It is suggested that also processes of inher-itance and landownership is important to understand the changing settlement pattern on the threshold of the Merovingian period. Changes of hereditary rights may then have been a strategy that was motivated by and stimulated to this desired development of both larger estates and split up settlements and farm land.

Acknowledgement

The article is partly based on a list over settlement sites in Eastern Norway, which will be published in full in The Museum of Cultural History’s program on Settlement archaeology (Martens in prep). The list is compiled by Jes Martens and updated in collaboration with Lars Erik Gjerpe and Margrete Simonsen. I am thankful for them letting me use this in my article. Thanks to Lars Erik Gjerpe and the E18 project for thought provoking and inspiring discussions on set-

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

16 RURALIA IX

??–??

tlement structure these last two years, and Ingvild Øye for reading the manuscript critically I would also like to thank Jessica McGraw for input and translating this article.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel beschreibt die archäologisch ausge-graben Siedlungen in Süd-Ost-Norwegen in Bezug auf drei Hypothesen zur Diskussion in die skandinavische Archäologie. Es wird vermutet, dass auch Prozesse der Vererbung und Zugehörigkeit zu Land wichtig ist, die wechselnde Siedlungsstruktur an der Schwelle der Me-rowingerzeit zu verstehen. Änderungen des Erbrechts kann dann eine Strategie gewesen, die durch motiviert war und stimuliert auf diese gewünschte Entwicklung der beiden größeren Gütern und aufteilen Siedlungen und Ackerland haben.

Résumé

Cet article discute les sites archéologiques fouillés dans le règlement du Sud-Est de la Norvège par rapport à trois hypothèses en cours de discussion en archéolo-gie scandinave. Il est suggéré que aussi des processus de succession et de propriété à la terre est important de comprendre la structure de l'habitat évolue sur le seuil de l'époque mérovingienne. Changements de droits héréditaires peuvent ensuite avoir été une stratégie qui a été motivée par et stimulé à cette évolu-tion souhaitée des deux domaines de plus en séparer les colonies et les terres agricoles.

Bibliography

Ahlkvist, H. B. 2002:Hällristarnas hem – gårdsbebyggelse och struktur i Pryssgår-den under bronsålder. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar 42. Stockholm.

Bratt, P. 2010:Makt uttryckt i jord och sten: stora högar och maktstrukturer i Mälardalen under järnåldern. Stockholm studies in archae-ology bd. 46. Stockholm.

Brink, S. 2002: Law and legal customs in Viking age Scandinavia. The Scan-dinavians from the Vendel period to the tenth century – an ethnographic perspective (ed. J. Jesch), 87–127. Woodbridge.

Büngten et al. 2011: 2500 Years of Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility, Science 331, no. 6017, 578–582.

Bårdseth, G. A. 2007: E6-prosjektet Østfold, Hus, gard og graver langs E6 i Sarps-borg kommune, vol 1–3. Varia vol 65–67. Oslo.

Carlie, L. 1999:Bebyggelsens mångfald. En studie av södra Hallands järnå-ldersgårdar baserad på arkeologiska och historiska källor. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series. Lund.

Diinhoff, S. 2011:Chiefl y Manors and the Establishment of a Socially Hierar-chical Settlement Pattern in Western Norway. Arkæologi I Slesvig. Det 61. Internationale Sachenssymposion 2010. Ha-derslev, Danmark, 211–222. Neumünster.

Edblom, L. 2004: Långhus i Gene: teori och praktik i rekonstruktion. Studia archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 18. Umeå.

Ericsson, A. 2001:Möre mellam järnålder och medeltid – omvandlingen av ett agrarlandskap. Möre – historien om ett Småland, 367–414. Kalmar.

Erikson, O. – Strid, J. P. 1991:Runstenar. Malmö.

Eriksson, J. E. G. 1993:Tønsberg og omlandet – Olavsklosterets økonomiske grunn-lag i Vestfold. Seminaret ”Kloster og by” 11.–13. november 1992: omkring Olavsklosteret, premonstratenserordenen og kloster vesenet i middelalderen (eds J. E.G. Eriksson – K. Schei), 94–111. Tønsberg.

Fabech, C. – Ringtved J. 1999: Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998. Århus.

Frölund, P. 2007: Gamla Uppsala under äldre jernålder. Land och samhälle i förändring. Uppländaska bygder i ett långtidsperspektiv. Ar-keologi E4 Uppland-studier 4, 361–378. Uppsala.

G = Den eldre Gulatingslova. Norrøne tekster 6, eds B. Eit-hun, M. Rindal og T. Ulset, 1994. Oslo.

Gansum, T. 1995:Jernaldergravskikk i Slagendalen – Oseberghaugen og stor-haugene i Vestfold – lokale eller regionale symboler. Upublis-hed disertation in archaeology. University of Oslo.

Gjerdåker, B. 2001:Til odel og eige – odels- og åsetesrettane gjennom eit mille-nium, med vekt på dei siste 250 åra. NILF-rapport / Norsk institutt for landbruksøkonomisk forskning. Oslo.

Gjerpe, L. E. 2008: E18-prosjektet Vestfold, Bind 3, Hus, boplass- og dyrknings-spor. Varia, vol. 73. Oslo.

Gjerpe, L. E. 2012:Fra natur til landbrukslandskap. Oppsummering Gulli–Lan-gåker. E18-prosjektet Vestfold bind 3. Oslo.

Gjerpe, L. E. – Østmo, M. 2008:Kapittel 3. Ringdal 13 – Hus fra romertid-merovingertid og graver fra førromersk jernalder. E18-prosjektet Vestfold, Bind 3, Hus, boplass- og dyrkningsspor. Varia, vol. 73, 39–142. Oslo.

Gollwizer, M. 2012:Graver, brønner og bosetningsspor fra bronsealder til mid-delalder på Hesby (lokalitet 13), in: A. Mjærum – L.E. Gjerpe (eds): Jordbruksbosetning og graver i Tønsberg og Stokke. E18-prosjektet Vestfold bd.1. Oslo.

17RURALIA IX

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance? ??–??

Grindkåsa, L. 2012: Boplasspor og grav fra romertid–merovingertid på Jarlsberg og Tem (lokalitet 8, 9 og 10), in: A. Mjærum – L. E. Gjerpe (eds): Jordbruksbosetning og graver i Tønsberg og Stokke. E18-prosjektet Vestfold bd 1. Oslo.

Gräslund, B. 2007: Fimbulvintern, Ragnarrök och klimatkrisen år 537–537 e. Kr. Saga och Sed, Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademiens årsbok 2007, 93–123. Uppsala.

Göthberg, H. 2000:Bebyggelse i Förändring. Uppland från slutet av yngre bron-sålder till tidig medeltid. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 25. Uppsala.

Göthberg, H. 2007: Mer än bara hus og gårdar. Hus och bebyggelse i Uppland. Delar av förhistoriska sammanhang. Arkeologi E4 Uppland, vol. 3, 403–447 (ed. H. Göthberg). Societas Archeologica Upp-saliensis. Uppsala.

Helgesson, B. 2002: Järnålderns Skåne: samhälle, centra och regioner. Uppåkra-studier 5, Acta archaeologica Lundensia 38. Lund.

Historia de profecitione Danorum in Hierosolyman = Jorsals-ferda åt danene, translated by B. Svare, 1934. Norrøne Bo-kverk nr. 31. Oslo.

Hobæk, H. 2008:Kongsgården Sem i Vestfold: en arkeologisk analyse av hoved-gård og gods i middelalder og yngre jernalder. Unpublished master thesis, University of Bergen.

Holst, M. 2004:The Syntax of the Iron Age Village: Transformations in an or-derly community. Århus University.

Iversen, F. 2008: Eiendom, makt og statsdannelse : kongsgårder og gods i Hor-daland i yngre jernalder og middelalder. UBAS, Nordisk 6. Bergen.

Iversen, F. 2009: Den nyere norske forskningen om jordegods i vikingtid og tidlig middelalder. En sammenligning med undersøkelsene av manor- og Grundherrschaft-systemer i Vest-Europa. Den tapte middelalder? Middelaldernes sentrale landbebyggelse (eds. Martens J. – Martens, V. – Stene, K). Varia 71, 59–70. Oslo.

Iversen, T. 1997: Trelldommen norsk slaveri i middelalderen. Skrifter, Histo-risk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen 1. Bergen.

Jørgensen, A. N. 1999: Waffen und Graber: typologische und chronologische Studien zu skandinavischen Waffengrabern 520/30 bis 900 n. Chr. Nordiske Fortidsminder ser. B Vol. 17. Copenhagen.

Kleven, H. I. 2001:Norrøn arverett og samfunnsstruktur. Oslo.

Koch, U. 1977: Das Reihengräberfeld bei Schretzheim. Germanische Denk-mäler der Völkerwanderungszeit. Serie A / Römisch-germa-nische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti-tuts, vol. 13. Berlin : Mann.

Løken, T. – Pilø, L. – Hemdorff, O. 1996: Maskinell fl ateavdekking og utgravning av forhistoriske jord-bruksboplasser: en metodisk innføring. AmS-varia vol 26 (ed. K. Griffi n). Stavanger.

Løken, T. 2001: Oppkomsten av den germanske hallen – hall og sal i eldre jernalder i Rogaland, Viking, 49–86. Oslo.

Martens, J. in prep:Faglig program for bosetningshistorie, Museum of Cultural history, University of Oslo.

Martens, J. 2007: Kjølberg søndre – en gård med kontinuitet tilbake til eldre jernalder? Varia 2007, vol 62. 89–109. Oslo.

Mjærum, A. 2012: Dyrkningsspor og fegate fra eldre jernalder på Hørdalen (lo-kalitet 51), in: L. E. Gjerpe – A. Mjærum (eds.): Dyrking, bo-setninger og graver og i Stokke og Sandefjord. E18-prosjektet Vestfold bd 1. Oslo.

Mjærum A. – Gjerpe, L. E. (eds) 2012a: Jordbruksbosetning og graver i Tønsberg og Stokke. E18-pro-sjektet Vestfold bind 1. Oslo

Mjærum A. – Gjerpe, L. E. (eds.) 2012b: Dyrking, bosetninger og graver og i Stokke og Sandefjord. E18-prosjektet Vestfold bind 2. Varia. Oslo.

Myhre, B. 1972: Funn, fornminner og ødegårder. Jernalderen bosetning i Høy-land Fjellbygd. Stavanger museum skrifter 7. Stavanger.

Myhre, B. 1992:Borre – et merovingertidssenter i Øst-Norge. Økonomiske og politiske sentra i Norden ca 400–1000 e. Kr. – Åkerseminaret, Hamar 1990 (eds. E. Mikkelsen – J. H. Larsen). Universitetets oldsaksamlings skrifter. Ny rekke 13, 155–179. Oslo.

Myhre, B. 2002:Landbruk, landskap og samfunn, in: B. Myhre – I. Øye: Nor-ges Landbrukshistorie bd. 1, Jorda blir levevei, 4000 f.Kr.–1350 e.Kr., 12–213, Oslo.

NG = Norske Gaardnavne, I–XVIII, ed. O. Rygh et al. Kra. 1897–

Nicolaysen, N. 1866: Norske fornlevninger. En oplysende fortegnelse over Norges fortidslevninger ældre end reformationen og henførte til hver sit sted. Kristiania.

NRR = Norske Rigs-registranter (utg. av C.C.A. Lange et al. vol. IV). Christiania 1861–1891.

Olsen, M. 1926: Ættegård og helligdom : Norske stedsnavn sosialt og religi-onshistorisk belyst. Instituttet for sammenlignende kultur-forskning Serie A: Forelesninger 9a. Oslo.

Pedersen, E. A. 1990: Rydningsrøysfelt og gravminner – spor av eldre bosetnings-strukturer på Østlandet. Viking, tidsskrift for norrøn arkeo-logi, bd LIII. Norsk Arkeologisk Selskap, 50–66. Oslo.

Pedersen, E. A. 1999: Transformations to sedentary farming in eastern Norway: AD 100 or 1000 BC? Settlement and Landscape Proceedings

Frode Iversen, Big bang, lordship or inheritance?

18 RURALIA IX

??–??

of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998, C. Fabech – J. Ringtved (eds.), Jutland Archaeological Society. Gylling.

Petersson, M. 2006: Djurhållning och betesdrift : djur, människor och landskap i västra Östergötland under yngre bronsålder och äldre jär-nålder. Stockholm – Uppsala.

Petersson, M. 2011: The Early Iron Age Landscape. Social Structure and the Or-ganisation of Labour. Arkæologi I Slesvig. Det 61. Internatio-nale Sachenssymposion 2010. Haderslev, Danmark, 249–268. Neumünster.

RB = Røde bok. Biskop Eysteins Jordebog (Den røde Bog) : Fortegnelse over det geistlige Gods i Oslo Bispedømme om-kring Aar 1400. Det norske historiske Kildeskriftfond 10 (ut-gitt ved H.J. Huitfeldt 1879). Christiania.

Reiss, R. 1994: Der merowingerzeitliche Reihengräberfriedhof von Westheim (Kreis Weissenburg-Gunzenhausen) : Forschungen zur früh-mittelalterlichen Landesgeschichte im südwestlichen Mittel-franken. Wissenschaftliche Beibände zum Anzeiger des Ger-manischen Nationalmuseums, Bd. 10. Nürnberg.

Reitan, G. 2009: Rapport fra arkeologisk utgraving. Moi (Gnr. 12/1, 2, 3 og 4), Bygland kommune, Aust-Agder. Kulturhistorisk museum. Universitetet i Oslo.

Reynolds, A. 1999:Later Anglo-Saxon England: life and landscape. Stroud.

Robberstad, K. 1967: Odelsrett. KLNM XII, 493–499.

Rösener, W. 1995: Einführung. Grundherrschaft und bäuerliche Gesellschaft im Hochmittelalter. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Insti-tuts für Geschichte 115, 9–15. Göttingen.

Skre, D. 1997: Haug og grav. Hva betyr gravhaugene, in: Middelalderens symboler (eds A. Christensson – E. Mundal – I. Øye). Kultur-tekster 11, 37–52. Bergen.

Skre, D. 1998: Herredømmet bosetning og besittelse på Romerike 200–1350 e. Kr. Acta Humaniora 32. Oslo.

Streiffert, J. 2005: Gårdsstrukturer i Halland under bronsålder och äldre jär-nålder. GOTARC, Series B, Gothenburg archaeological theses 66. Mölndal, Göteborg.

Sorrusten, E. – Østmo, M. 2012: Depot, bosetningsspor og dyrkningsspor fra neolitikum til middelalder på Borge østre (lokalitet 22), in: A, Mjærum – L. E. Gjerpe (eds): Jordbruksbosetning og graver i Tønsberg og Stokke. E18-prosjektet Vestfold bd 1. Kulturhistorisk Mu-seum, Fornminneseksjonen. Oslo.

Stylegar, F. A. 2005: Tunformer og bebyggelse i middelalderen. From his blog:

http://arkeologi.blogspot.com/2005/03/tunformer-og-bebyg-gelse-i.html

Söderberg, B. 2005: Aristokratiskt rum och gränsöverskridande. Järrestad och Sydöstra Skåne mellan region och rike 600–1100. RAÄ Ar-keologiska undersökningar. Skrifter 62. Stockholm.

Tacitus, Cornelius 98. Agricola ; Germania : lateinisch und deutsch / Cornelius Tacitus , translated Alfons Städele 2001. Zürich.

Verhulst, A. 1995: Aspekte der Grundherrschaftsentwicklung des Hochmittelal-ters aus westeuropäischer Perspektive. Grundherrschaft und bäuerliche Gesellschaft im Hochmittelalter (ed. W. Rösener).

Wasberg, G. C. 1970: Brunlanes. En bygdebok. Bind 1. Bygdehistorie. Larvik.

Zachrisson, T. 1994: The Odal and its manifestations in the Landscape, Current Swedish Archaeology 2, 219–238. Stockholm.

Zachrisson, T. 2011: Property and Honour – Social Change in Central Sweden, 200–700 AD Mirrored in the Area around Old Uppsala. Ar-kæologi I Slesvig. Det 61. Internationale Sachenssymposion 2010. Haderslev, Denmark, 141–156. Neumünster.

Zimmermann, W. H. 1998: Pfosten, Ständer und Schwelle und der Übergang vom Pfo-sten- zum Ständerbau – Eine Studie zu Innovation und Be-harrung im Hausbau. Zu Konstruktion und Haltbarkeit prä-historischer bis neuzeitlicher Holzbauten von den Nord- und Ostseeländern bis zu den Alpen. Probleme der Küstenfor-schung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 25, 9–241.

Ødegaard, M. 2008:Graver og grenser: territoriell organisering av gårdene i jern-alderen i Søndre Vestfold. Unpublished master thesis, Univer-sity of Bergen.

Ødegaard, M. 2010: Graver og grenser. Territoriell inndeling av jernalderens jord-brukslandskap i Vestfold. Primitive tider 12 2010, 27–39. Oslo.

Østmo, E.1991: Gård og boplass i østnorsk oldtid og middelalder Aktuelle oppgaver for forskning og forvaltning, Varia 22, Universite-tets oldsakssamlings skrifter. Oslo.

Øye, I. 2002a:Vestlandsgården – fi re arkeologiske undersøkelser, L. Juls-hamn, R. Bade, K. A. Valvik, J. Åstveit (ed. I. Øye). Arkeolo-giske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen 8. Bergen.

Øye, I. 2002b: Landbruk under press, 800–1350. In: B. Myhre & I. Øye: Jor-da blir levevei – 4000 f. Kr. –1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshis-torie 1, 214–453. Oslo.

Dr. Frode Iversen, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo. Frode.iversen@khm.uio.no