Publications from the National Museum Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 20:3 Jelling Series Husebyer – status quo, open questions and perspectives Papers from a workshop at the National Museum Copenhagen 19–20 March 2014 Edited by Lisbeth Eilersgaard Christensen, Thorsten Lemm & Anne Pedersen HUSEBYER – STATUS QUO, OPEN QUESTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES Papers from a workshop at the National Museum Copenhagen 19–20 March 2014 EDITED BY LISBETH EILERSGAARD CHRISTENSEN, THORSTEN LEMM & ANNE PEDERSEN PNM Publications from the National Museum Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 20:3 Copenhagen 2016 Husebyer – status quo, open questions and perspectives Papers from a workshop at the National Museum, Copenhagen 19–20 March 2014 Publications from the National Museum. Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 20:3 Jelling Series Edited by Lisbeth E. Christensen, Thorsten Lemm & Anne Pedersen © Authors and the National Museum of Denmark All rights reserved PNM Editorial Board: Director of Research and Communication Camilla Mordhorst Head of Research and Collections Michael Andersen Senior Researcher Mette Marie Hald Senior Researcher Mikkel Venborg Pedersen Research Coordinator Birgit Rønne Cover design and layout: Pia Brejnholt English revision: Gillian Fellows-Jensen Printed by: Narayana Press, Gylling Published by University Press of Southern Denmark Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M ISBN: 978-87-7602-333-1 Funded by: The Bikuben Foundation Cover illustration: Drawing adapted from the seal from the Husby-Harde in the Stadtarchiv Flensburg (after H. Hinz, Stabkirchen im Landesteil Schleswig, Offa 38, 1981). CONTENTS Scale change – Kingstons and royal power PREFACE 7 in the middle Anglo-Saxon England, c. AD 650–850 Huseby in the Old Norse written sources Stuart Brookes 107 Lydia Carstens 11 Huseby and the Scandinavian taxation Husebyer in Norway – their archaeological model and topographical context Frode Iversen 121 Frans-Arne Stylegar 27 Husabyar, administration and taxation in Same, Same but Different – Three case medieval Sweden studies reflecting Swedish Husabyar Thomas Lindkvist 141 from an archaeological and geographical perspective Haraldr Hárfagri and the unification of Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson 41 Norway Knut Dørum 151 Husebyer in Denmark – Husby in Grejs parish, Nørvang hundred, and Husby in The Husabyar in the unification process of Ullerup parish, Elbo hundred the Swedish kingdom Lisbeth Eilersgaard Christensen 55 Johan Runer 165 Excavations and surveys – Husby in Glans- The unification process of the Danish king- hammar, Huseby in Tjølling, Huseby in dom – and the Danish Husebyer and their Värend and Husby in Anglia owners Thorsten Lemm 71 Else Roesdahl 175 The Orkney Huseby Farms – The onomas- WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 185 tic, historical and archaeological context Barbara Crawford & Alexandra Sanmark 91 INDEX 187 FRODE IVERSEN HUSEBY AND THE SCANDINAVIAN TAXATION MODEL Introduction the areas around the North-Sea basin during the late Iron Age and early Middle Ages (Sawyer 1993). A total of nearly 140 huseby farms are known from Scholars have regarded royal manors as important the Nordic countries, Schleswig and the Orkney strongholds for such petty kingdoms in Norway, Islands (Steinnes, 1955; 1959; Brink 2000a, 2000b; Scandinavia and northern Europe (Iversen 2009). Crawford 2006; Westerdahl & Stylegar 2004). Since Also during shifting geopolitical constellations, such Henrik Schück’s (1914) classic work on Uppsala öd as around the year 1030 when western Norway was huseby farms they have been central to the academic ruled by vassals of the Danish king, the royal man- discussion on early royal power, particularly in Swe- ors seem to have constituted the backbone of the den and Norway (Olaussen 2000; Iversen 2011). political power and governing structure of the area Despite this, there are still a number of unre- (Hkr, Olav Tryggvasons saga, kap. 15 bd. 1, 130; solved questions regarding the huseby farms: What Hertzberg 1893, 295f). was their role in relation to royal manors and the I have previously identified 52 royal manors, 50 lendmann estates, i.e. the manors of the king and lendmann estates and 52 huseby farms in Norway his closest military allies (Iversen 1999; 2008). This dating to before the mid-14th century (Iversen 2008). article argues that the functions of the huseby farms These different estates together constituted the most in the early Scandinavian kingdoms were primarily important part of the rural and decentralised state of an economic nature, and that these farms served apparatus of early medieval Norway (c. 1000-1150). as centres for collection of royal fees and fines. This During the course of the 13th and 14th centuries argument will now be investigated in detail. towns and castles gradually became the primary Research in the last 30 years has highlighted royal strongholds and thus the state apparatus be- western Norway (Hordaland and Rogaland) in par- came centralised and ‘urbanised’. ticular, as the geographical heartland of a united The older rural royal manors served as residences Norwegian kingdom during the 10th century (Ei- for itinerant kings and were administered by the narsdóttir 1971; Helle 1982, 72; 2001, 28f; Krag so-called årmenn. Most kingdoms in Europe prac- 1990, 181ff.; 1993, 34f; 1995, 84, 102; Bjørkvik tised a decentralised rural form of government in the 1999, 30-39; Iversen 2008). Harald Fairhair’s rather early Middle Ages and earlier. It does, however, seem unstable kingdom constituted just one of several that the huseby estates were unique to Scandinavia regional kingdoms competing for supremacy over and Orkney. A possible parallel is found in England HUSEBY AND THE SCANDINAVIAN TAXATION MODEL 121 122 HUSEBYER - STATUS QUO, OPEN QUESTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES where the nearly seventy Kingston estates have been the king’s personal estates (bona patrimonalia), nor discussed along the same lines as the huseby farms among the royal estates (bona regalia or Kungalev) (Bourne 1988; Probert 2008; cf. Brookes in this (Andrén 1983; Iversen 2011; Rasmussen 2011). volume). The function of these farms has not been It has long been established that the huseby es- clarified, however, and theories are as numerous as tates of Uppland in Sweden are closely related to those regarding the huseby estates. Another potential the administrative unit of the hundred (hundare) parallel is the c. fifty ‘farm of one night’ estates in (Thomas Lindkvist in this volume). This has created southern England (Lavelle 2005). These were a type a president for discussions regarding their function, of manor at which the king and his followers were age and connections to royal administration. The entitled to stay for a period of up to 15 nights, as hundred represents an older judicial unit, most likely documented in Domesday Book (c. 1066). of military origin. I have previously pointed out that Sweden, Denmark and Norway had similar gov- the huseby estates of western Sweden - where they ernance structures during the early Middle Ages, are fewer - better correspond to the late medieval although royal manors are harder to identify in shires (fogderier), as recreated by Birgitta Fritz. The Sweden. The Kings’ Sagas are an important source shires were primary connected to the collection of for conditions in Norway and mention many farms taxes and fees, a situation which suggests a finance that the king visited. These accounts are, however, was important for the huseby estates, too. incomplete and systematic overviews of medieval Denmark is different from the rest of Scandinavia royal estates are lacking. We therefore only get a since only eight huseby estates are known. They have very partial view of the system that once existed. been given little attention compared to the huseby The same applies to thelendmann (Baron) estates farms of Sweden and Norway. Despite their low which can be compared to the English ‘farms of one number, they still provide important material for the night’. Gustav Storm (1882) provided a systematic huseby research. In an article from 2011 I pointed overview of all available information regarding the out that the huseby estates of Denmark correspond lendmenn and their seats. Farms of this type have to the earliest bishoprics, a discovery which may be not been identified in Sweden either but it is clear important and makes Denmark stand out in the that many aristocratic centres and magnates had Scandinavian context (Iversen 2011). There was one similar obligations to the king. huseby estate in all bishoprics founded before 1060, The situation in Denmark is better as the Cadaster apart from two. of King Valdemar II (1230) provides an extraordi- The Florence document issued in the time of Pope nary account over the king’s personal estates as well Calixtus (1119-1124) lists the bishoprics of Provincia as other royal properties including farms, towns, Danorum, i.e. the archbishopric of Lund, around forests and islands. This is the ‘Domesday Book’ 1120 (Nyberg 2008). This list was probably stems of Scandinavia, although later and limited to the from the time when the Nordic church province, royal estates, and does not therefore provide such which consisted of Denmark, Norway and Swe- a full overview as the English source from 1066- den, was founded in 1104 (Nyberg 2008, 167). In 86. What is of importance for the huseby research 1152/1153 Norway became a separate church prov- is that the Cadaster does not make any mention ince, and Sweden followed in 1164. The archbishop of the eight Danish huseby estates, neither among of Lund, however, remained the primas of Sweden, Fig. 1.a). The eight huseby farms in Denmark were situated close to sea routes. All bishoprics established before 1060 had a huseby estate except Viborg in the interior Jutland. It is possible that huseby estate of Viborg was situated by the Nissum fjord. Denmark’s second longest river, Storå, stretched for more than 100 kilometres into the interior and formed a natural route from Viborg. Image © Frode Iversen. b). The Jutland dioceses in 1710. Detail from the map Tabula Generalis Iutiae by the German cartographers Johann Baptist Homann (1663-1724) and son, Christoph Ho- mann (1703-1730).