Community and Society: the Thing at the Edge of Europe Author(S): Frode Iversen Source: Journal of the North Atlantic, 8():1-17

Community and Society: The Thing at the Edge of Europe Author(s): Frode Iversen Source: Journal of the North Atlantic, 8():1-17. Published By: Eagle Hill Institute DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3721/037.002.sp802 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3721/037.002.sp802

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. 2015 Debating the ThingJournal in the of North:the North The Atlantic Assembly Project II Special Volume 8 2015 Journal of theF. Iversen North Atlantic Special Volume 8:1–17

Community and Society: The Thing at the Edge of Europe

Frode Iversen*

Abstract - This article addresses the question of how vast societies were created by increased interaction among smaller communities through judicial cooperation. This process is explored through two case studies of the law provinces of (1) Gulathing and (2) Hålogaland, Norway, covering a time span of nearly a millennium, from the 3rd to 13th century. Central to the discussion of the early phase, during the 3rd–10th centuries, are the courtyard sites of Åse and Bjarkøy, Hålogaland, providing key materials to these developments in a northern European context. This material is supplemented by a case study of the Gulathing law area, which is one of only a few Scandinavian cases where the development can be more securely traced from the 11th to the 13th centuries. In addition, population size and the number of delegates present at the representative thing are considered.

Introduction both communities and larger societies. A geographic Key questions: From local communities to larger context is essential to the understanding of the earli- societies—the development of law regions during est known thing sites in northern Europe—namely the the Middle Ages courtyard sites of Norway, dating from the 2nd to the The thing is the oldest known collective institu- 11th century. A courtyard site is essentially a collec- tion in Europe. In pre-urban Scandinavia, the thing tion of houses or booths situated around an oval semi- was the most important place for social interaction circular open space (yard) (Johansen and Søbstad and negotiation. The concept of place has been a 1978:55). These have recently been re-interpreted as central topic in research since 1970. By using terms thing sites (A.B. Olsen 2005; M. Olsen 2003; Storli such as “sense of place”, “placelessness”, and “topo- 2006, 2010). A second key question is to what degree philia”, geographers and others have described posi- these sites both archaeologically and architecturally tive reflections between people and places (Easthope reflect the communities, societies, and landscapes 2004, Patterson and Williams 2005, Relph 1976, within which they functioned. Tuan 1974). Categories such as “insideness” and Several unresolved questions about courtyard “outsideness” have been used to describe the notions sites remain, such as in what way and on which geo- of familiarity with or estrangement from a place. In graphical level did they function as assembly sites? 1980, the Norwegian architect Christian Norberg- Were they the gathering sites for local communities Schulz published a study of the Roman religious or were they representational things for vast societ- concept of genius loci, the spirit of the place, which ies? If these sites truly were thing-sites, why and inspired a more phenomenological approach (Nor- when did they cease to function as such? Could their berg-Schulz 1980). In this concept, the focus was disuse or abandonment be linked to political changes particularly centered on the subjective experience of and the emergence of minor kingships, as Inger place. This was the prevailing theoretical perspective Storli (2006, 2010) has claimed, or was it caused by during the 1990s and 2000s in studies of place and the development of an extensive judicial authority home (Iversen 2014, Lappegard Hauge 2007). encompassing vast societies? The third and perhaps The first key question of this study is therefore the most essential question concerns the origin and whether the thing was planned with inter-subjective development of law provinces, which is fundamental communication in mind. Was their primary purpose for understanding the past and the processes where- to create grounds for the exchange of equality of by small communities transformed and merged into rights and identity as well as a shared neutral space larger societies. These are a few of the aspects that I for negotiation? To explore this question, an ex- examine in this analysis. amination of the architecture of the assembly sites is essential and demands closer attention, not only Counting communities? The arithmetic of land- to shed light on the interaction between people and scapes: A hypothesis places but also to understand the principles behind Cultures are shaped on a micro-level, when the layout of such meeting-places. people meet and interact and when relationships and The thing did not exist in a void. Things were so- various behaviors occur. Culture is communication. cially, morally, and potentially religiously attached to Individuals are the “atoms” of culture. Through

*Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; [email protected].

1 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen interaction, individuals become confined and re- and eights in western Norway (Baker and Brookes stricted in opposition to others. However, culture 2013, Hobæk 2013, Holmbäck and Wessén 1943:92, is more than a bland compromise. Community cre- Indrebø 1935). In parts of northern and eastern Nor- ates a division of labor and specialization, where way (Hålogaland and Borgathing law province), the individuals can realize their potential and become quarter represented the smallest thing district during included in larger networks. Complementary actors the Middle Age (Indrebø 1935, Ødegaard 2013). form communities. In larger collectives, security and There were four quarters in each “ship-district”. Ad- tradition, when combined with avant-garde methods ditionally, the so-called wapentakes in the Danelaw and innovation, can become mutually beneficial of England were divided into smaller quarters (Bak- to one another. However, social conflict can occur er and Brookes 2013:80). Such numerical divisions when interests are in opposition and when certain were closely connected to the thing system. Thus, attributes are assigned values and become ranked it appears that there was a widespread cultural need above others—where mine or ours becomes more for classifying and counting communities according important than yours. This situation prompts social to equal units. Ultimately, it was a way to assess negotiation to occur. population size—whether for military, legal, or tax What strategies did communities adopt to ac- purposes—and is related to the transition from com- commodate such needs? I investigate this question munity to society. in terms of the role of the thing during the Middle Ages. My hypothesis is that quantification—the Past perspectives: Reinterpreting the courtyard counting alike—has been and remains a necessary sites as thing sites prerequisite for creating a sense of justice, both in- In Europe, the Norwegian courtyard sites are key dividually and collectively. material for understanding the thing system. Ap- Evidence of this can be demonstrated by the oc- proximately 30 courtyard sites have been identified currence of numerical naming of various landscapes and are located on the west coast of Norway, stretch- in Europe. A few examples are Tiundaland, Attunda- ing from Lista in the south to Bjarkøy in the north land, and Fjärdrundland in Uppland, Sweden. The (Fig. 1a). The use of and activity at these sites can be meaning of these place-names is “ten-hundred- traced as far back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Many land”, “eight-hundred-land”, and “four-hundred- were still in use during the 9th and 10th centuries, and land”. The word hundred (hundari), as in the numer- a few as late as the early 11th century. These sites al 100, was not only an administrative base unit in were especially suitable for longer stays, providing parts of Sweden but is known from similar examples lodging and feasting. However, it is surprising that from Germany, Friesland, and Switzerland as early there are no known parallels elsewhere in Scandina- as A.D. 776 (Andersson 2000, Iversen 2013:13). The via or northern Europe, with the exception of later Domesday Book tells us that much of England was versions in Iceland (Vésteinsson 2013). Extensive or subdivided into hundreds in A.D. 1086 (Baker and long commutes, sparse population, and rare occur- Brookes 2013) and remained so until A.D. 1894. The rences of thing meetings could be possible explana- earliest record of hundreds in a northern European tions as to why there are many courtyard sites here. context is two Frankish decrees from the 6th century, The courtyard sites have been much discussed where Centena, the Latin term for Hundreds, is re- since their initial discovery by Nicolay Nicolaysen ferred to as an administrative unit (Iversen 2013:13). in the 1860s of Dysjane by Tinghaug at Hauge in Numerical division of the landscape is an old Jæren (Fig. 1d). Nicolaysen (1866:301) described tradition. The meaning of the Frisian names Tventhe Dysjane as a thing site containing remnants of (recorded in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) and Drenthe houses. Since then, there have been almost as many (recorded in the 9th century) are likely to be “the interpretations as there have been sites discovered. second land” and “the third land” and account for Previously, these sites were regarded as related to two of the three historic parts of the landscape of royal power and minor chiefdoms (Grimm 2010). In Oversjissel—the landscape beyond the river Issel.1 recent years, however, they have been reinterpreted In Scandinavia and Iceland, landscapes were also as assembly sites (Storli 2006, 2010). divided into arithmetic units. This practice was not In the 1930s, the archaeologist Jan Petersen necessarily embraced in the naming of landscapes. interpreted the sites at Jæren, southwest Norway, However, medieval laws and other written sources as villages (Fig. 1c; Petersen 1938:156). Unlike demonstrate the existence of subdivisions. A few the more densely populated areas of Europe, Iron examples are sixths and thirds in Gotland, Swe- Age villages had yet to be discovered in Norway. den, thirds in the inlands of eastern Norway and Hence, Petersen attempted to place the settlement in the Danelaw of England, quarters in Jämtland, history of Norway into a known European pattern. modern Sweden, and Iceland, and finally quarters However, the archaeological material discovered 2 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen during Petersen’s excavation did not reflect the The Norwegian archaeologist Harald Egenæs type of material one might expect to find at more Lund (1955, 1959, 1965) had a particular focus on permanent settlements. Essentially, only fragments the northernmost courtyard sites. He saw a connec- of simple cooking vessels, hearths, and cooking pits tion between richly furnished burials and the rem- were found. The individual house-plots contained a nants of boathouses in the vicinity of the courtyard build-up of thick cultural layers, consisting of waste sites. He believed that the material remains reflected material from food preparation and consumption. legal, militant, and cultic gathering places, not vil- Later research has shown that the sites are located lages or farmstead settlements. Instead, he under- some distance away from arable land (Berglund stood the sites as a tactical focal point in the land- 1994, Grimm 2010, Storli 2006). scape, where the chieftain and his followers could

Figure 1. (A) Map of the courtyard sites in Norway. Image © Frode Iversen. (B) Top right: LiDAR-scan of the courtyard site at Værem. This site was still in use in the early 11th century. Image © Lars Forseth, Nord-Trøndelag Fylkeskommune. (C) Middle right: The courtyard site of Øygarden, close to Stavanger, during the excavation of Jan Petersen, 1939–1940. The site was still in use in the early 8th century. Photograph © Arkeologisk Museum, Universitetet i Stavanger. (D) Lower right: The courtyard site at Dysjane at Tinghaug, Jæren, A.D. 200–600. Photograph © Ragne Jonsrud, Arkeologisk Museum, Universitetet i Stavanger. 3 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen reside and hold strategic control of the surrounding tion, and lodging for the chieftains’ followers landscape. Thus, Lund introduced important ele- (Grimm and Stylegar 2004:128). ments of the chiefdom-interpretation, which has Storli (2006) conducted thorough work on the remained the dominant interpretation. After Lund’s courtyard sites of northern Norway. Her archaeo- death in 1972, the archaeologists Olaf Sverre Johan- logical surveys have provided improved dating for sen and Tom Søbestad undertook a review of the sur- assessing the chronology of the sites. Through her viving material (Johansen and Søbstad 1978). They research, the thing-interpretation has been advo- were more cautious in their interpretations but also cated. Among others, she sees a correlation between concluded that the courtyard sites should be seen in the Icelandic thing booth and the thing-system. the context of chiefdoms. In turn, this became the Storli believes that the abandonment and disuse of prevailing interpretation throughout the 1980s and the courtyard sites was catalyzed by the emergence early 1990s, influenced by the neo-evolutionistic of larger political entities. She argues that the Earls perspectives of that era. of Hålogaland gained more prominence in the area, Work conducted by the influential archaeologist which naturally was followed by an expansion of Bjørn Myhre, who had a particular focus on social their territory. This development had direct con- organization, formed an important underlying prem- sequences for the assembly system in the northern ise in the study of courtyard sites during the 1980s region. Her article in Norwegian Archaeological Re- and 1990s (Grimm 2010:12; Magnus and Myhre view (NAR), published in 2011, was followed by a 1986:265, 315, 380; Myhre and Øye 2002:201–207). discussion with contributions from several research- The assembly interpretation was not popular during ers, including this author and colleagues of The As- this period, and the sites were regarded as imposed sembly Project (Brink et al. 2011). Her interpretation “top-down” structures reflecting the power of petty was, to a large extent, based on Icelandic analogies kings and chieftains (Lillehammer 1994:154–155, and, to a lesser degree, on the historical sources of Løken 2001, Solberg 2002). The archaeologist Bir- Hålogaland (Iversen et al. 2011). gitta Berglund even argued that the site of Tjøtta Additional important contributions to this topic was a chieftain's farmstead (Berglund 1995:48–49, were made by Asle Bruen Olsen (2005, 2013), fo- 342–344). cusing on the sites of Hjelle and Sausjord, western The Polish archaeologist Przemisław Urbańczyk Norway, and minor work by Kari Støren Binns (1992) saw a relation between the courtyard sites (1988) at Mo, farther north. The sites of Trøndelag and the increased trade-exchange between southern in Mid-Norway and the Værem site in Namdalen and northern Norway during the Roman Period. He (Fig. 1b) were studied by Ingvild Onsøien Strøm emphasized that the sites were located on neutral (2007). Oliver Grimm (2010) conducted a new ex- ground and were therefore more suitable for nego- amination of the empirical data of the sites at Jæren. tiation between various groups. The archaeologist Combined, there is much available empirical data Terje Gansum (2000:159) interpreted the courtyard from Norway, but a true understanding of the sites sites as being ritual gathering places associated with and their relation to the surrounding landscape has warfare. However, there is little material and few yet to occur. I believe that a better understanding can traces of weapon-related activity in support of this be achieved by analyzing the sites within the context claim. The archaeologist Niall J. Armstrong (2000) of their administrative landscape. is more isolated in his interpretation, as he perceives the courtyard sites as being “copies” of Roman am- Methods and Material phitheatres and centers of culture for mercenaries returning from the Roman Empire. The scheme of the study: Two case studies Using the sites of Jæren and Hjelle, the thing- This paper presents an examination of the interpretation was re-introduced by Morten Olsen arithmetic aspects of the thing and its ties to the (2003) and Asle Bruen Olsen (2005). The court- landscape. This topic is discussed with an emphasis yard sites were seen as places of socio-political on representational things. Appointed men (ON, activity that should be understood as assembly nefndarmaðr m) met at representational things on sites (M. Olsen 2003:11, 126–127). However, behalf of their communities. there was not enough evidence in the analysis The research consists of two case studies, which to strongly support this hypothesis. Frans Arne shed some light on the main subject of this article: Stylegar and Oliver Grimm presented a similar the origin of the law provinces reflected through idea when they suggested that the sites must have increased interaction amongst minor communities been multi-functional. In their opinion, the sites during the transformation to larger societies. First, displayed traces of all sorts of activities, such as I examine these aspects in the context of the juris- sports and games, legal assemblies, craft produc- diction of the Gulathing from the 11th to the 13th 4 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen century. Then I conducted an in-depth discussion of 1663–1666 and 1701, but these are incomplete and the thing-system during the 3rd to the 10th century, not easily accessible. I have broken down the data using examples from Hålogaland. from 1769 into different geographical alternatives and compared the proportional size of the population The Gulathing: An expanding law-province with the records of representatives in the Gulathing There are two basic axes in modern western law. The validity of this method is based on an as- electoral systems: values and geography. Values are sumption of a fairly stable proportional geographic expressed through political programs and ideology, distribution of population through time. However, and geography is expressed through the proportional the historian Oddleif Hodne (1976) has studied the representation within the base units, such as munici- population growth in the southern part of the Gulath- palities and counties (Carstairs 1980). The concept ing area between 1625 and 1800. Due to a substan- of the representational thing was well known in tial migration to Holland, the county of Vest-Agder Scandinavia during the Middle Ages. The regional had only a sixth of the population growth compared assemblies during the Middle Ages were representa- to Norway as a whole. This insight must be taken tional things. Intermediate things also existed, such into consideration in this study. It indicates that the as the quarter-things in Ryfylke. These still func- Agder counties, in particular, had a somewhat small- tioned as representational assemblies in the 1620s, er proportion of the population in 1769 compared to but they came under pressure during the reign of the Middle Ages. King Christian IV, and the representational system How many individuals did each delegate rep- disappeared altogether in the 1600s (Iversen 2015). resent? Did some of the regions have a relatively In contrast, the local things were althings and not higher proportion of delegates than others? This representational things. During these assemblies, all approach may also shed some light on which areas of the farmers (bøndr alla) within the local thing dis- were under the jurisdiction of Gulathing law in the trict gathered. The attendance in the actual meetings 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. However, it is important was optional for widows (of farmers) and disabled to keep in mind that there is a significant time gap farmers, while loners were required to meet at only between these sources, and the results should be the three most important types of thing meetings interpreted with caution. (Eithun et al. 1994:103, G 131). The purpose of case study 1 is to understand the The courtyard sites: Early testimonies of the rep- changing nature of law provinces. In Scandinavia, resentational thing? there were ~20 such provinces during the 11–13th Today, approximately 30 courtyard sites are century (Fig. 2). The Gulathing is the only case in known in Norway. The larger sites include traces Scandinavia that provides firm empirical grounds of more than 20 house-plots (Dysjane, Tinghaug for such a study (Helle 2001). The surviving manu- on Jæren), and the smallest sites contain only four script of the Gulathing law is from the 13th century: houseplots (i.e., Bøstad, Lofoten). Still, a clear dis- the Rantzau book. It is a copy of an edition from tinction can be observed between large, well-orga- the mid-12th century when the law was revised. nized sites containing a central mound and smaller However, the law also contains sections attributed sites without a central mound but with a symmetrical to specific kings. The “Olaf text” is believed to be layout. The size of the individual house-plots nor- from the early 11th century and was adopted in the mally measures between 30 and 50 m2. reign of King Olaf Haraldsson (1015–1028), while How illustrative is the archaeology of these the “Magnus text” was adopted in the reign of sites? It is rare to discover new courtyard sites, but Magnus Erlingsson (1161–1184). When comparing new methodologies in topsoil stripping have led to these 11th- and 12th-century texts embedded in the the recent discovery of two additional sites, at Saus- Gulathing law and the rural law of Magnus the Law- jord in Voss and a smaller site at Hjelle in Sogn (A.B. mender (A.D. 1274), it is possible to establish some Olsen 2005, 2013). The site at Sausjord in Voss is the chronological stages in the development of the law only completely excavated site of its kind in Norway province by examining the number of delegates and and has revealed multiple phases of human activity, which landscapes they represented (Helle 2001:65). both before and after the main period during which I discuss these developments in the context of the courtyard was in use. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, population size in the various landscapes, which are the site likely functioned as a trading post, as sug- recorded in a later census. gested by traces of iron production and up to 50 I have used the population figures recorded in pits containing slag. At the end of the Late Roman the first complete census of Norway in A.D. 1769 period, 12 house-plots were established, all of which (Bjerve and Sevaldsen 1980:47, Tab. 2 VII). Earlier were in use throughout the Migration Age and per- records of the population in Norway exist, from A.D. haps even later. Traces of at least 135 cooking pits 5 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen

Figure 2. The law provinces in Scandinavia in the 11–14th to the centuries. Image © Frode Iversen. 6 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen were discovered, of which only 4 have been dated. two or three phases of activity (Johansen and Søb- These pits suggest that the place also functioned as stad 1978:18–19). The external dimensions of the a gathering place during the Viking Age and through site are thought to have been 55 m (E–W) x 44 m the High Middle Ages (Olsen 2013). The function (N–S) with a circumference ~170 m. The courtyard of the thing could have been ascribed a wider loca- itself measured 34 m x 25 m. The eastern entrance tion rather than a specific courtyard site. One should is clearly documented; it measured 5 m wide at its therefore be cautious; the locations could have been narrowest point. There were traces of a low-lying places of gathering, both before and after the period central mound, which measured approximately 5 m when they functioned as a courtyard site. in diameter. However, the northwestern part of the I will now move on to a detailed analysis of mound was damaged and partly removed prior to two such sites, Åse and Bjarkøy. These are the two the investigations by Lund (Johansen and Søbstad northernmost courtyard sites in Norway and Europe. 1978:14–15, 19; Storli 2006:48–51). Hence, it is interesting to examine Hålogaland in a The reconstructed medieval (A.D. 1050–1537) perspective of a European center-periphery. This is a thing landscape is the foundation of the further site place where the Germanic and the Sami language and analysis. In Hålogaland, the minor jurisdictions culture interacted (Hansen and Olsen 2004). How were constituted by so-called tingsted (sic) (in the were the northernmost fishing and farming commu- north) and fjerding (in the south). These are recorded nities of Europe legally organized more than a thou- in A.D. 1567 in Rekneskap for dei nordlandske lena sand years ago? The sites are large and symmetrical og Finnmark 1566–1567, published by The National in layout. One site consists of 14 house-plots, while Archives (Riksarkivet), which is the first systematic the other contains traces of 16 house-plots. Åse and record of the administrative landscape of Håloga- Bjarkøy are from different periods, before and after land (Jansen 1943). Earlier dispersed evidence is ca. the 6th century, respectively, and may have suc- attested to in the cadastre of Aslak Bolt from ca. ceeded each other as the main regional assembly in A.D. 1430 and in a 15th-century law manuscript the northern province of Hålogaland. (Indrebø 1935:28; Jørgensen 1997:87–89, 97; Storm The site at Åse is located 3.5 km from the known 1885:773). historic settlement of Åse in Andenes and is situated I have identified the existence of 44 minor units on a sandbank in the wetlands by Finnklokneset. It in Hålogaland in 1567, while 52 is recorded in the is well hidden and located 450 m from the shoreline, Tax Cadastre of 1647. According to King Magnus’ 3.5 m above sea-level. It is 40 m x 34–44 m in di- will, there were 13 ship-districts in Hålogaland in ameter and is of a circular shape with the entrance A.D. 1277, and the Gulathing Law states that 7 ships facing east. The preserved cultural layers were up came from the southern part and 6 from the north to 40 cm in thickness, and a total of 43 14C-samples (Eithun et al. 1994:170, G 315). Most likely, the have been taken from the site. The latest, middle, border between the north and the south was drawn and early phases from 12 of the house-plots were between Lofoten and Vesterålen, which is a natural dated by Storli in 2000, while an additional two were border and also fits the reconstruction of ship-dis- examined by Torstein Sjøvold in 1948 and 1949, trict the best. From written sources, two larger re- followed by 14C results in 1968 (from house-plots 2 gions—ON, fylki—can be justified: Helgeland fylki and 13) (Johansen and Søbstad 1978:43–44; Sjøvold and Trondarnes fylki (Omd) (Indrebø 1935:70–71). 1971:25; Storli 2000, 2006:52–55). It is uncertain whether the region in-between was The Bjarkøy site is located in the periphery and one or two fylki. However, I have counted Vesterålen is surrounded by wetlands and bogs, ~1 km from as part of Trondarnes fylki, and Lofoten together the historical farmsteads of Øvergård, Nergård, with Salten, which may or may not be the third fylki. and Austnes. The site is ~400 m from the shoreline This accounting potentially gives three main regions of Einebærvika in the south, where there is a large in Hålogaland; Helgeland to the south, an unnamed burial site. Harald Egenæs Lund excavated the site fylki in the middle (Lofoten and Salten), and Tron- at Bjarkøy from 1950–1953 (Fig. 3). Lund exam- darsnes fylki (including Vesterålen) to the north. ined all of the house-plots in the southern row and This configuration corresponds quite well with the three in the northern row, for a total of 11 house- distribution of the court yard sites; however, the plots. The cultural layers ranged in thickness from reconstruction remains somewhat uncertain. 20–40 cm. Alongside the central axis within the A tentative reconstruction of the 13 ship districts individual house-plots, he discovered concentrations must be based on the simple fact that each ship-district of fire-cracked stones, charcoal, and ash, which he should contain four quarters, as suggested by several interpreted as hearths. He discovered features in ad- scholars, most notably by the historian Håvard D. Bra- dition to post-holes in different stratigraphic levels. trein (1984). Only three ship-districts are named in The archaeology was superimposed, thus indicating charters, all in the 1400s: Loofota skipredhu (1425), 7 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen Vagha skiparedhæ (1472), and Raudøyar skipreide A.D. 1609, which lists 13 naval encampments and (1497) (Bull 1920). Bratrein (1984) presented a re- boathouses (NO, skjøttebåtstasjoner) in Hålogaland. construction based on Hartvig Billes recordings from These locations may have been the centers of the ship-

Figure 3. Harald Egenæs Lund´s drawing of the courtyard site at Bjarkøy. After Johansen and Søbstad (1978). 8 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen districts in the Middle Ages. the meetings, 16 of whom arrived from Sunnmøre My method for reconstructing the ship-districts (Eithun et al. 1994:33–35;G 3). Thus there appears is slightly different. I have taken Bratrein’s naval to have been a reduction of 150 representatives centers into consideration. However, unlike both over ~150 years. Seven barons from the coastal him and the historian Edvard Bull (1920), I perceive provinces, except from Nordhordland, which was Våge and Lofoten as two separate ship districts and close to the thing site, had to stay at home during the not as a single unit. The Þingasaga informs us that assemblies to guard the region, as there was fear of the baron Sigurd Ranesson (ca. 1070–1130) was possible conflict. The bishop appointed two parish taken to court ca. 1114 by King Sigurd Magnusson priests from each county. During the 13th century, (the Crusader) at Kepsiey (Kjefsøy) (Storm 1877:8, the number of delegates decreased. According to the 49). Sigurd Ranesson came from Steigen in Engeløy rural law of Magnus the Lawmender (Munch 1848:L quarter, while Kepsiey is identified to the bordering I 2), only 148 representatives should attend the as- Våge quarter. In my view, this could indicate that the sembly after A.D. 1274, which is approximately quarters of Engeløy and Våge, one on each side of 40% of the attendees of the 11th century. In addition the fjord, had a common assembly, and most likely to the barons and the bailiffs, the king himself and was part of the same ship-district (Våge). the bishops’ stewards (NO, årmenn) were obligated to attend the assembly. The figures display the following: Firda com- Results prised 19.2% of the population in 1769 and held Case study 1: Development of the Gulathing law 21.3% of the delegates in 11th century. The area of province during the 10th–13th centuries Sogn had 14.9% of the population and held 17.1% of It is not clear which geographical areas were un- the delegates. Under the assumption of stable ratios, der the jurisdiction of the Gulathing Law during the these counties were somewhat overrepresented at 11th century. Partly, it is a matter of whether Horda- the assembly in relation to the overall ratio of the land encompassed Sunnhordland and Nordhordland population (2.1 and 2.2%, respectively). Hordaland and excluded Voss and Hardanger, as it did later. It (Sunnhordland and Nordhordland) was in a slight is also uncertain whether the entire county of Agder minority (-1.7%), encompassing 28.9% of the popu- was part of the law province during the 11th century lation in A.D. 1769, and held 27.2% of the delegates. or whether only a smaller part of it was included. I The region of Rogaland had a slightly better ratio, would like to explore two possible alternatives by with 25.6% of the population and 27.2% of the del- comparing the population size and the number of rep- egates (+1.6%). However, Lista in Agder contained resentatives of Hordaland with and without Voss and 11.5% of the population but held only 7.2% of the Hardanger and of Agder with and without Nedenes, representatives (-4.3%). Apparently, these data Mandal, and Setesdal. could indicate that Agder, which was located farther In the 11th century, 375 representatives met at the from the assembly site, was in a minority and that Gulathing (Table 1; Helle 2001:65). They came from Sogn and Firda—areas closer to the assembly site— the areas of Agder (27), Rogaland (102), Hordaland were overrepresented. Still, these differences are not (102), Sogn (64), and Firda (80), in addition to an more significant than could be explained by small undetermined number from Sunnmøre, which I have changes in the relative population ratio between excluded from this discussion. The king’s barons A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1769. and bailiffs, in addition to the priests of the par- However, if we include Hardanger and Voss ishes, were obliged to attend. According to the later (13,500) within Hordaland, and Nedenes (20,018), “Magnus text”, from the reign of Magnus Erlings- Mandal (10,688), and Setesdal (6206) within Agder, son (1161–1184), only 248 representatives attended there are significant discrepancies, and the numbers

Table 1. Distribution in percentage of the number of delegates attending the Gulathing in the 11th century and the population ratio in A.D. 1769. # = number of delegates. % = percent of delegates. Count = population count in A.D. 1769. % ratio = percent of population in A.D. 1769.

Distribution of delegates Alternative 1: The Gulathing excluding Alternative 2: The Gulathing including mentioned in the ”Olaf text” Hardanger, Voss, Mandal, Nedenes and Setesdal all of Hordaland and Agder

Region # % Regions in A.D. 1769 Count % ratio Regions in A.D. 1769 Count % ratio Rogaland 102 27.2 Rogaland 33,116 25.6 Rogaland 33,116 17.8 Hordaland 102 27.2 Sunn- and Nordhordland 37,347 28.9 All of Hordaland 50,847 27.3 Firda 80 21.3 Sunnfjord and Nordfjord 24,799 19.2 Sunnfjord and Nordfjord 24,799 13.3 Sogn 64 17.1 Sogn 19,283 14.9 Sogn 19,283 10.4 Agder 27 7.2 Lista 14,862 11.5 All of Agder and Setesdal 58,007 31.2 Sum 375 100.0 129,407 100.0 186,052 100.0

9 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen become close to meaningless, except in the case of would argue that in the early 11th century, the juris- Hordaland, which had 27.3% of the population and diction of the Gulathing included the regions of Fir- held 27.2% of the delegates. There are large discrep- da, Sogn, the actual region of Hordaland (Sunnhord- ancies for the other areas, from approximately 7% land and Nordhordland) excluding Hardanger and in Sogn and Firda to 24% in Agder. Thus, the first Voss, and Rogaland, while including only Lista in option seems more likely. Agder. This option provides a relatively good bal- There were ~58,000 residents living in Agder in ance between representatives in the 11th century and A.D. 1769, including the area of Setesdal (Råbyg- the population share in A.D. 1769 (Table 1). gelag). Thus, a larger population resided in Agder During the 11th century, the population was most than in Rogaland, which contained a recorded 33,000 likely considerably less than in A.D. 1769. If we inhabitants in A.D. 1769. Even without Setesdal, the assume a 30% increase in population during the pe- population in Agder was more substantial. However, riod, there could have been approximately 100,000 Rogaland had nearly four times as many delegates at inhabitants in the narrower area of the Gulathing the assemblies than Agder had during the 11th cen- during the 11th century. If so, it would have pro- tury: 102 delegates from Rogaland and 27 from Ag- vided one representative for each 250 individuals. der. As such, it seems unlikely that there were only If the population growth had been lower, such as 27 lawright men (ON: lǫréttumaðr/nefndarmaðr) a 20% increase, there would have been one repre- representing the whole of Agder. In that case, the sentative for every 300 individuals. During the 11th numbers would reflect a completely unfair distribu- century, it is likely that the order of assembly pri- tion of delegates. marily consisted of a class of landowners. Thralls In Lista, 27 circuits (NO: manntall) are listed did not participate in these proceedings, although in in various sources from early 17th century (Indrebø an early phase this is less clear in the case of land- 1935:239). Strikingly, this is the same number as the less laborers (Iversen 2007:172). In comparison, number of delegates from Agder in the 11th century, the Norwegian Parliament today holds one delegate according to the “Olaf text”. These circuits were not per ~30,000 individuals. thing units but an administrative subdivision of the The historian Knut Helle has suggested that the skipreiða, which are only known from Lista and in Gulathing only covered the areas of Sogn, Firda, Mandal in southern Norway. The term manntall ap- and Hordaland around A.D. 930, as suggested by pears in A.D. 1558 (legnes manttall) (Magerøy 1972 Egil’s Saga (Helle 2001). Provided this is accurate –1976:832, DN XXI no. 1079). Both the name, and combined with my new contribution, it is pos- manntall, meaning “the number of men”, and the sible to establish four chronological stages in the number of circuits may indicate that the delegates development of the Gulathing law province, which of the 11th century were appointed from these units. illustrates the dynamic processes behind the devel- This information also supports the idea that only opment of a larger society. It provides a glimpse Lista of the Agder province was included in the ju- into a process of an increased interaction among risdiction of the Gulathing in the 11th century. smaller communities during the transformation to In A.D. 1769, Sunnhordland and Nordhordland larger societies, expanding from a nucleated core had ~37,000 residents, in contrast to 33,000 in Ro- of three counties in the 10th century, through the galand. When combined, Hordaland, including Voss addition of coastal counties in the north and south and Hardanger, contained nearly 51,000 inhabitants in the 11th century, and the inclusion of inland areas in A.D. 1769. Therefore, it seems less likely that in the 12th and 13th century. The history of Norway Hordaland included the areas of Voss and Hardanger Historia Norwegie, from ca. A.D. 1160, records that when reviewing the “Olaf text”. It can also be noted both Hallingdal and Valdres were part of the law that Hordaland held more delegates than Rogaland province during this time (Ekrem and Mortensen in A.D. 1274: 40 versus 30 delegates. According to 2006:58). In A.D. 1274, the law area also included both the “Olaf text” and the “Magnus text”, these several of the additional interior areas and valleys counties had previously contained the same number (Fig. 4; Taranger 1915:7). Hence, the four stages can of delegates. This finding may suggest that Voss and be summarized as follows: Hardanger were included in the Gulathing in the cen- 1. The 10th century: Hordaland (Sunnhord- turies between ca. A.D. 1170 and A.D. 1274, which land and Nordhordland), Sogn, and Firda. in turn suggests that the whole county of Agder and 2. The 11th century: addition of Rogaland and Hordaland hardly could have been included in the Lista. Sunnmøre was included shortly after th jurisdiction of the Gulathing in the 11 century. (prior to A.D. 1028). The alternative that provides the best correlation 3. The 12th century: further addition of Hal- is a Gulathing that excluded Hardanger, Voss, and lingdal and Valdres (prior to ca. A.D. the eastern and interior parts of Agder. Therefore, I 1160). 10 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen

Figure 4. The chronological development of the Gulathing law province, from the 10th to 13th century. Image © Frode Iversen. 11 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen

4. The 13th century: even further addition of In the northern part, which seems to have been Voss, Hardanger, Nedenes, Mandal, and a Norse settlement prior to ca. A.D. 575 (i.e., from Setesdal (between ca. A.D. 1170 and 1274). Vesterålen to Malangen), there were 14 thing dis- The question is whether the courtyard sites are tricts in A.D. 1567 (Indrebø 1935, Jansen 1943), evidence of an earlier phase and the predecessors of which corresponds to the number of house-plots at such developments. In the following section, a more Åse. As we shall see, this correlation could be of detailed analysis of two such sites is undertaken to great significance in the interpretation of the sites as investigate this question. being thing sites. The Bjarkøy site consisted of two juxtaposed Case study 2. The Hålogaland law area and de- rows, with each row containing traces of 8 house- velopments during the 3rd–10th centuries: Åse and plots. They were arranged around an oval courtyard Bjarkøy with entrances facing the east and west. Thus, it had In the case of Hålogaland, I have identified the 16 house-plots, which is 2 more than Åse. A total of existence of 44 local thing districts in A.D. 1567. 38 artifacts were found. Among these was a Viking Combined, these form the basis of my reconstruction Age glass bead, whetstones of slate, and arrowheads of a total of 13 ship-districts (skipreiða) and 3 main and knives from the Merovingian or Viking Age. regions (see above). During the Middle Ages, the Shards of clay vessels and a whetstone of quartzite, main northern region was most likely named Omd most likely from the late Migration Period, were and consisted of Vesterålen, Andenes, Senja, and also discovered (Storli 2006:50). Ten 14C dates taken Troms in A.D. 1647. The middle region included from 7 house-plots and 3 mounds have been re- Salten and Lofoten, while the southern region was ported. The latest dates suggest that the site fell into called Helgeland. Key to each of the 3 main regions disuse around A.D. 900. There appears to be almost was a large courtyard site from the Late Iron Age— no activity at the site prior to A.D. 500, although this Bjarkøy in the north, Steigen in the central region, cannot be completely excluded. Storli (2006:50) has and Tjøtta in the south. suggested a main phase of activity in A.D. 500 and It is probable that the extent of Norse settle- a gradual reduction of activity in the years follow- ment prior to ca. A.D. 575 stretched as far north as ing A.D. 800. Abandonment around A.D. 900 seems Malangen, as indicated by the number of prehistoric reasonable to presume. Overall, I consider the main burial sites in the area. In Hålogaland, 450 burials period of activity at Bjarkøy to be A.D. 500–900 th date to before the mid-11 century, 134 of which are and, thus, mainly the period after the abandonment prior to ca. A.D. 575 (Sjøvold 1962, 1974; Storli of the site at Åse. In my opinion, the evidence could 2006:88, Appendix 2). None of the 44 burials that demonstrate that the sites may have succeeded each contained weapons dated prior to ca. A.D. 575 are other chronologically, possibly having a short con- located north of Malangen. Prestigiously furnished temporary phase. burials and graves containing weapons from post-ca. In A.D. 1567, there were three local thing units A.D. 575 have been uncovered at Karlsøy in Troms, north of Malangen: Hillesøy, Helgøy, and Skjervøy. as far north as Nordkapp, and to the east of Ekkerøy According to the historians Håvard Dahl Bratrein in todays’ area of Finnmark (Storli 2006:79). The (1989) and Maurits Fuglesøy (1970:55), the Norwe- Norse settlement most likely extended farther north gian settlement in Skjervøy was not established until during the Merovingian and Viking Eras (ca. A.D. A.D. 1500. Thus, there appear to have been 16 local 575–1050). The importance of this relation will be units in the extended northern area, encompassing further enhanced by a closer look at the sites of Åse Ulvøy in Vesterålen in the south to Helgøy in Troms and Bjarkøy. in the north. This count coincides well with the num- The site at Åse is centrally located in the northern region, excluding the areas north of Malangen. ber of house-plots at the assembly site at Bjarkøy From both Korsodden in the south and Tennevold (Fig. 5). in the east, there is an approximately 100-km sea route to Åse. The distance from Åse to Malangfjord Discussion in the north is a 110–120-km travel route. The site of Åse was most likely built sometime from A.D. Let us return to the questions set out above: Was 120 to 340. The overall layout of the site is most the thing planned with inter-subjective communica- likely representative of the 5th century. A sample tion in mind? Did the layout of the courtyard-sites taken from the latest phase of house-plot 8 indicates mirror the landscapes they functioned within? When abandonment after A.D. 540 (2 sigma) and A.D. 550 were the law provinces created, and how did they (3 sigma). Therefore, I am in agreement with Storli’s develop during the Middle Ages? (2006:53) conclusion that the site was abandoned Case study 2 indicates a dynamic system. just prior to or around A.D. 600. Bjarkøy most likely assumed its judicial function as 12 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen a regional thing site after the discontinuity of Åse from the cooperating communities gathered at the and the expansion of the northern territory. It is my courtyard sites. Each community had their separate opinion that the local thing units recorded in A.D. house-plots. In the case of Bjarkøy, 13 individuals 1567 are in fact far earlier and could well be simul- from each of the 16 communities would have made taneous with the courtyard sites. More specifically, a total of 208 representatives, in addition to the in- I surmise that the communities of Ulvøy, Barkestad volved parties of the cases tried at these meetings. and Kalsnes, Langenes, Malnes, Vinje, Andenes, The historically known lawthing of Hålogaland Gryllefjord, Kvæfjord, Fauskevåg, Sand, Astafjord, was located at Steigen in the mid-region until A.D. Gisund, and Gibostad all had a separate house-plot 1797 (Falkanger 2007:20). The first written record at the site at Åse. When the jurisdiction was extend- of the Steigen lawthing is from the 23rd of June A.D. ed further north, the assembly site was relocated to 1404 (Lange and Unger 1852:440; DN 2, no. 580). Bjarkøy, thus including the new thing districts and The relationship between the lawthing at Steigen the communities of Hillesøy and Helgeøy, which and the thing held in the town and marketplace of received their own house-plots. Vågan has been discussed. The historian Narve The site at Bjarkøy was located approximately 30 Bjørgo (1982:50) concluded that the Brudeberg- km farther east and was thus more centrally situated thing at Vågan was an urban lawthing and did not in the expanded area. The distance between Karlsøy perceive the lawthing at Steigen as a later successor, in the north and Bjarkøy was 200 km, and from the as suggested by the historian Jens Arup Seip (1934). southern areas the journey to Bjarkøy was 30 km I agree with Bjørgo. It is symptomatic that the longer than to Åse. The thing was relocated from medieval lawthing of Hålogaland was established Åse to Bjarkøy, which was larger and included the in the precise location, on the same island, where additional house-plots needed for the extended judi- the central site of the three major courtyard sites in cial region. Hålogaland was located during the Viking Age. In The Thing books of the early 17th century contain my view, this chronology strongly suggests a type of clear evidence that the delegations of representa- centralization process, in which the geographically tional quarter things in Ryfylke, in southern Norway, most central site took on the function of the main consisted of 4, 6, or 12 men from each community, lawthing of the entire province. This scenario im- in addition to local sheriffs (NO, lensmenn) (Iversen plies that the functions of minor lawthings became 2015). I suggest that similarly sized delegations centralized and that a new authority of the 3 main

Figure 5. Left: Local thing districts in northern Hålogaland A.D. 1567. Image © Frode Iversen. Right: Simplified plan of the house plots at Bjarkøy. Drawing © Inger Storli. 13 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen provinces in Hålogaland was established. In my the assembly and those who did not (A. Sanmark, opinion, the disuse of the 3 major assembly sites was University of the Highlands and Islands, Kirkwall, connected with the establishment of a new lawthing Orkney, unpubl. data). Being chosen or elected to be at Steigen at Engeløya. a delegate and thus represent the local community at The courtyard sites of Norway present a unique the gatherings was most likely recognized as a great testimony of judicial processes in the landscape. It is honor. As such, only the best of men (góðir men, fascinating that we are able to follow the evolution meliores) received this recognition in their local of the thing and its development in Hålogaland—the communities. northern agrarian outpost of Europe—over 2000 We are not sure whether the house-plots were years, from the establishment of the earliest sites in arranged according to the delegates’ geographical the Late Roman Period to the disuse of Steigen in region. For example, it is possible that the delega- 1779. tions from the northernmost areas took up residence What can be observed is a process of central- in the northernmost house-plots and the delegation ization during the first millennium. Prior to the th7 from the south in the southern house-plots of the century, many small courtyard sites existed, which site. If each of the local delegations had their own gradually became obsolete, until only 3 large sites house-plot, structured by their geographic location, were left, each of them located in their own region, it would have been a way for the participants to gain as highlighted by Inger Storli (2006, 2010). During knowledge of their geography and regional land- the 9th or 10th century, the 3 regions merged and a scape. The courtyard sites were designed in such a new singular lawthing was established at Engeløya way that the façade and the width of the house-plots in the mid-region. It is probable that this chronology were relatively alike when viewed from the open reflects an extensive development in the process courtyard. This positioning could express the ideo- of establishing a superior jurisdiction, where an logical conditions and the historical mentality—the increasing number of communities were merged idea of shared values and equality. The individual in order to establish larger societies. As such, the house-plots varied in length, but this would not have development is similar to that of the Gulathing, the been noticed from the angle of the central courtyard. origins of which could be far earlier and as such Thus, it would not have affected the visual impres- display the dynamics of judicial development. The sion of equality. I believe that quantification—the jurisdictions were gradually expanded, as demon- counting alike—was a fundamental prerequisite in strated by the analysis of both Hålogaland and the the establishment of the collective judicial body and Gulathing. is something that is observable in the spatial and The Gulathing law province was expanded from ideological organization of the courtyard sites. a minor nucleation of 3 counties in the 10th century to include the northern and southern coastal areas Acknowledgments in the 11th century, as I have demonstrated by comparing the population ratio with the percentage of My sincere thanks go to Dr. Alexandra Sanmark (Uni- representatives. During the 12th and 13th centuries, versity of the Highlands and Islands), Dr. Sarah Semple (Durham University), and Dr. Natascha Mehler (Vienna the inland regions became part of the larger society. University) for discussions, critical reading, and com- This analysis presents new results to the study of the ments with regards to this manuscript. Thanks to Profes- origin of the thing in a Norwegian context. sor Orri Vésteinsson (University of Iceland) who acted as The locations of the assembly sites during the JONAs guest editor, and the two anonymous reviewers Iron Age were most likely chosen for their neutral- for their valuable input. Thank you to Jessica McGraw for ity and centrality in the landscape. This neutrality translation and proofreading. could have induced a positive sense of place by the gathered individuals. It signalled the absence Literature Cited of sovereignty. Still, this could have been decep- Andersson, T. 2000. Hundare. Pp. 233–238, In R. Müller tive because many of the courtyard sites are located (Ed.). Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde close to known important centers of power, as Storli 15. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. (2006) has demonstrated. However, these sites were Armstrong, N. 2000. Tunanlegg og amfiteatre. En hypo- located in neutral zones in the periphery, some dis- tese om tunanleggenes opprinnelse. Primitive tider— tance away from the main farmstead. The spirit of arkeologisk tidsskrift:102–118. the place, the genius loci, was supposed to evoke a Baker, J., and Brookes, S. 2013. Governance at the Anglo- Scandinavian interface: Hundredal organization in sense of neutrality, even if it was a misleading no- the southern Danelaw. Journal of the North Atlantic tion. There could have been a division of insideness Special Volume 5:76–95. and outsideness—both among the delegates in the Berglund, B. 1994. Samfunnsorganisasjon på Helgeland. various thing booths and among those who attended Spor 1 17:22–26. 14 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen

Berglund, B. 1995. Tjøtta-riket—en arkeologisk under- Hobæk, H. 2013. Tracing medieval administrative sys- søkelse av maktforhold og sentrumsdannelser på Hel- tems: Hardanger, Western Norway. Journal of the gelandskysten fra Kr. f. til 1700 e. Kr. UNIT, Viten- North Atlantic Special Volume 5:64–75. skapsmuseet, Fakultet for arkeologi og kulturhistorie, Hodne O. 1976. Fra Agder til Amsterdam: en studie av Arkeologisk avdeling. Trondheim, Norway. 619 pp. norsk emigrasjon til Nederland i tiden ca. 1625–1800. Binns, K.S. 1988. Ringformet tunanlegg - også oppdaget Unpublished thesis in History, University of Oslo. på Mo i Brønnøy. Spor 2:50. 127 pp. Bjerve P.J., and P. Sevaldsen (Eds.). 1980. Norges første Holmbäck, Å., and Wessén, E. 1943. Svenska Landskaps- folketelling 1769. The first population census in Nor- lager Tolkade och Förklarade för Nutidens Svenskar way 1769. Statistisk sentralbyrå. Central Bureau of 4. Skånelagen och Gutalagen. Hugo Gebers Förlag, Statistics of Norway, Oslo, Norway. 368 pp. Stockholm, Sweden. 421 pp. Bjørgo N. 1982. Vågastemna i mellomalderen. Pp. 4–60, Indrebø, G. 1935. Fjordung: granskingar i eldre norsk In S. Imsen and G. Sandvik (Eds.). Hamarspor. Eit organisasjons-soge. Bergens museums aarbok 1935:1, festskrift til Lars Hamre 1912 – 23. Januar – 1982. Bergen, Norway. 287 pp. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo – Bergen –Tromsø, Norway. Iversen, F. 2013. Concilium and pagus—Revisiting the Bratrein, H.D. 1984. Skjøttebåter og leidangsskip i Early Germanic thing system of northern Europe. Nord-Norge. Acta Borelia. A Norwegian journal of Journal of the North Atlantic, Special Volume 5:5–17. circumpolar societies 1:27–37. Iversen, F. 2014. Tinget. Om aritmetikk og rettferdighet. Bratrein, H.D. 1989. Fra steinalder til år 1700. Karlsøy og Tinget i randen av Europa i jernalderen. Pp. 246–256, Helgøy bygdebok: Folkeliv, næringsliv, samfunnsliv In S.H. Gullbekk (Ed.). Ja, vi elsker frihet: en antologi. 1. Hansnes, Karlsøy kommune, Norway. 562 pp. Dreyer. Oslo, Norway. Brink. S., et al. 2011. Comments on Inger Storli: “Court Iversen, F. 2015. Tinglag og tunanlegg. Øygarden i Ro- Sites of Arctic Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and galand. In S. Sindbæk and A. Pedersen (Eds.). Nord- Representations of Political Consolidation Processes lige Verdener. Nationalmuseet, København, Denmark. in the Northern Germanic World during the First Mil- Iversen, F., Hobæk H., and Ødegaard M., 2011. The lennium AD?” Norwegian Archaeological Review historic and sociogeographical context of thing sites. 44(1):89–117. Comments on Inger Storli: “Court Sites of Arctic Bull, E. 1920. Leding. Militær- og finansforfatning I Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and Representations Norge i ældre tid. Steenske forlag, Kristiania og of Political Consolidation Processes in the Northern København. 175 pp. Germanic World during the First Millennium AD?” Carstairs, A.M. 1980. A Short History of Electoral Sys- (Norwegian Archaeological Review 43[2]). Norwe- tems in Western Europe. Allen & Unwin, London, gian Archaeological Review 44(1):94–97. UK. 236 pp. Easthope, H. 2004. A place called home. Housing, Theory, Iversen, T. 2007. Die frühe norwegische Dingordnung and Society 21:128–138. zwischen Herrschaft und Genossenschaft. Pp. 167– Eithun, B., M. Rindal, and T. Ulset. 1994. Den eldre Gu- 186, In T. Iversen, J.R. Myking, and G. Thoma (Eds.). latingsloven. Riksarkivet, Oslo, Norway. 208 pp. Bauern zwischen Herrschaft und Genossenschaft. Ekrem I., and L.B. Mortensen (Eds). 2006. Historia Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway. 289 pp. Norwegie. Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Jansen, J. (Ed.). 1943. Rekneskap for dei nordlandske Copenhagen, Denmark. 245 pp. lena og Finnmark 1566–1567. Pp. 137–266. In Nor- Falkanger, T.A. 2007. Lagmann og lagting i Hålogaland ske Lensrekneskapsbøker 1548–1567, 5. Riksarkivet, gjennom 1000 år. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway. Oslo, Norway. 237 pp. Johansen, O.S. and Søbstad, T. 1978. De nordnorske tun- Fugelsøy, M. 1970. Skjervøy. Et prestegjeld og et herred anleggene fra jernalderen. Viking 1977 41:9–56. i Nord-Troms 1. Skjervøy kommune, Norway. 420 pp. Jørgensen, J.G. (Ed.). 1997. Aslak Bolts jordebok. Riksar- Gansum, T. 2000. Etterord. Pp. 148–169, In J. Illkjær kivet, Oslo, Norway. 522 pp. (Ed.). Den første Norgeshistorien—Illerupfunnet: Ny Lange, C.C.A., and C.R. Unger (Eds.). 1852. Diplo- innsikt i skandinavisk romertid. Kulturhistorisk for- matarium Norvegicum. Oldbreve til Kundskab om lag, Tønsberg, Norway. Norges indre og ydre Forhold, Sprog, Slægter, Sæder, Grimm, O. 2010. Roman period court sites in South-Wes- Lovgivning og Rettergang i Middelalderen, vol. 2:2, tern Norway: a social organisation in an international Christiania, Norway. 948 pp. perspective. AmS-skrifter 22. Arkeologisk Museum, Lappegard Hauge, Å. 2007. Identitet og sted: En sammen- Universitetet i Stavanger, Norway. 192 pp. ligning av tre identitetsteorier. Tidsskrift for Norsk Grimm, O., and F.A. Stylegar. 2004. Court sites in south- Psykologforening 44 8:980–987. west Norway. Reflection of a Roman Period political Lillehammer. A. 1994. Fra jeger til bonde: inntil 800 e.Kr. organisation? Norwegian Archaeological Review Aschehougs norgeshistorie 1. Aschehoug, Oslo, Nor- 37(2):111–133. way. 233 pp. Hansen, L.I., and B. Olsen. 2004. Samenes historie fram Lund, H.E. 1955. Håløygske høvdingeseter fra jernalde- til 1750. Cappelen akademisk forlag, Oslo, Norway. ren. Stavanger Museums Årbok:101–107. 427 pp. Lund, H.E. 1959. Håløygske høvdingeseter og tunanlegg Helle, K. 2001. Gulatinget og Gulatingslova. Skald, Lei- fra eldre og yngre jernalder. Håløygminne 10:244– kanger, Norway. 240 pp. 249. 15 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen

Lund, H.E. 1965. Håløygske høvdingegårder og tunanlegg Seip, J.A. 1934. Lagmann og lagting i senmiddelalderen av Steigen-typen fra eldre og yngre jernalder. “Valhall og det 16de århundre. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akade- med de mange dører.” Norsk Tidsskrift for sprogviten- mi, Oslo, Norway. 131 pp. skap 20:287–325. Sjøvold, T. 1962. Early Iron Age: (Roman and Migration Løken, T. 2001. Jæren eller Karmøy—hvor var makta i periods).The Iron Age Settlement of Artic Norway Rogaland i eldre jernalder? Var Avaldsnes et maktsen- I. Tromsø Museums Skrifter, 10, 1.Tromsø, Norway. ter omkring 200 e. Kr.? Frá Haug ok heiðni 2:13–14. 253 pp. Magerøy, H. (Ed.). 1972–1976. Diplomatarium Norvegi- Sjøvold, T. 1971. Åse-anlegget på Andøya. Et Nord-Norsk cum 21 1–3. Oslo, Norway. 1025 pp. tunanlegg fra jernalderen. Acta Borealia, B. Humanio- Magnus, B., and B. Myhre. 1986. Forhistorien: Fra jeger- ra no. 12:5–34. gruper til høvdingsamfunn. Norges historie 1. Bok- Sjøvold, T. 1974. Late Iron Age: (Merovingian and Viking klubben nye bøker, Stabekk, Norway. 451 pp. periods). The Iron Age Settlement of Artic Norway II. Munch, P.A. 1848 (Ed.). Den nyere Lands-Lov, utgiven av Tromsø Museums Skrifter, 10, 2. Tromsø, Norway. Kong Magnus Haakonsson. Pp. 1–178, In R. Keyser 392 pp. and P.A. Munch (Eds). Norges gamle Love indtil 1387 Solberg, B. 2002. Courtyard sites north of the polar circle. 2. Lovgivningen under Kong Magnus Haakonssøns Reflections of power in the Late Roman and Migration Regjeringstid fra 1263 til 1280, tilligemed et Supple- Period. Pp. 219–229. In B. Hårdh, B. and L. Larsson ment til første Bind. Christiania, Norway. (Eds). Central Places in the Migration and Merovin- nd Myhre, B., and I. Øye. 2002. Jorda blir levevei: 4000 gian Periods. Papers from the 52 Sachsensympo- f.Kr.-1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie 1. Samla- sium. Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, Sweden. get, Oslo, Norway. 495 pp. Storli, I. 2000. Barbarians’ of the north. Reflections on Nicolaysen, N. 1866. Norske fornlevninger. En oplysende the establishment of courtyard sites in North Norway. fortegnelse over Norges fortidslevninger ældre end Norwegian Archaeological Review 33(2):81–103. reformationen og henførte til hver sit sted. Foreningen Storli, I. 2006. Hålogaland før rikssamlingen. Politiske til Norske fortidsminnesmerkes bevaring, Kristiania, prosesser i perioden 200–900 e. Kr. Instituttet for Norway. 859 pp. sammenlignende kulturforskning. Novus forlag, Oslo, Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980. Genius Loci: Toward a Phe- Norway. 224 pp. nomenology of Architecture. Rizzoli International Storli, I. 2010. Court sites of arctic Norway: Remains of Publications, New York, USA. 216 pp. thing sites and representations of political consolidation processes in the northern Germanic world during Olsen, A.B. 2005. Et vikingtids tunanlegg på Hjelle i the First Millennium AD? Norwegian Archaeological Stryn. En konservativ institusjon i et konservativt Review 43(2):128–44. samfunn. Pp. 319–354, In K.A. Bergsvik and A. En- Storm, G. 1877. Sigurd Ranessøns process. Þingasaga gevik (Eds). Fra funn til samfunn. Jernaldersstudier milli Sigurðar konungs ok Eysteins konungs. Kristia- tilegnet Bergljot Solberg på 70-årsdagen. Arkeologisk naia. 68 pp. institutt, University of Bergen, Norway. Storm, G. 1885. (Ed.). Norges gamle Love indtil 1387 Olsen, A.B. 2013. Undersøkelse av et eldre jernalders tun- 4. Indeholdende Supplementer til de tre foregaaende anlegg på Sausjord, Voss, Hordaland – et nytt bidrag Bind samt Haandskriftbeskrivelse med Facsimiler. til kunnskapen om jernaldersamfunnets sosiale og Christiania, Norway. 797 pp. politiske organisasjon. Viking 2013 76:87–112. Strøm, I.O. 2007. Tunanlegg i Midt-Norge. Med særlig Olsen, M. 2003. Den sosio-politiske organiseringen vekt på Væremsanlegget i Namdalen. Unpublished av Jæren i eldre jernalder. Et tolkningsforsøk med Master’s Thesis. NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. 107 pp. utgangspunkt i skriftlige kilder og tunanleggene. Taranger, Absalon (Ed.) 1915. Magnus Lagabøtes Land- Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Tromsø. slov. Cammermeyers boghandel, Kristiania, Norway. 148 pp. 206 pp. Patterson, M.E., and D.R. Williams. 2005. Maintaining Tuan, Y-F. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental research on place: Diversity of thought and scien- Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia Univer- tific progress. Journal of environmental Psychology sity Press, New York, NY, USA. 260 pp. 25:361–380. Urbańczyk, P. 1992. Medieval Arctic Norway. Institute of Petersen, J. 1938. Leksaren. Viking 1937 2:151–158. the History of Material Culture, Polish Academy of Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness: Research in Sciences. Semper, Warszawa, Poland. 287 pp. Planning and Design 1. Pion Limited, London, UK. Vésteinsson, O. 2013. What is in a Booth? Material Sym- 156 pp. bolism at Icelandic Assembly Sites. Journal of the Room, A. 2005. Placenames Of The World: Origins and North Atlantic Special Volume 5:111–124. Meanings of the Names for 6600 Countries, Cities, Ødegaard, M. 2013. State formation, administrative ar- Territories, Natural Features, and Historic Sites, 2nd eas, and thing sites in the Borgarthing Law Province, Edition. McFarland & Company, London, UK. 439 pp. Southeast Norway. Journal of the North Atlantic Spe- Schütte, G. 1933. Our Forefathers, the Gothonic Nations: cial Volume 5:42–63. A Manual of the Ethnography of the Gothic, Ger- man, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Frisian, and Scandinavian Peoples 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 482 pp. 16 2015 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 8 F. Iversen

Endnotes 1Pago Drenthe, ca. 820, Thrija-hantja, three land, derives from thrija (three) and hantja (land). Accordingly, Tvi derives from two (Room 2005:114, Schütte 1933:162). Cives Tuihanti is mentioned in a Latin Inscription of the 3rd century, and the name is recorded by C. Tacitus (A.D. 98; Iversen 2013:10).