This article was downloaded by: [University of Oslo] On: 02 September 2013, At: 03:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Norwegian Archaeological Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20 Court Sites of Arctic Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and Representations of Political Consolidation Processes in the Northern Germanic World during the First Millennium AD? Stefan Brink a , Oliver Grimm b , Frode Iversen c , Halldis Hobæk c , Marie Ødegaard d , Ulf Näsman e , Alexandra Sanmark f , Przemyslaw Urbanczyk g , Orri Vésteinsson h & Inger Storli i a Centre for Scandinavian Studies, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom b Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology, Schleswig, Germany c Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Norway d Department of of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Norway e Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden f Centre for Nordic Studies, University of the Highlands and Islands, Kirkwall, United Kingdom g Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland h Department of Archaeology, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland i Department of Cultural Sciences, Tromsø University Museum, University of Tromsø, Norway Published online: 09 Jun 2011. To cite this article: Stefan Brink , Oliver Grimm , Frode Iversen , Halldis Hobk , Marie degaard , Ulf Nsman , Alexandra Sanmark , Przemyslaw Urbanczyk , Orri Vsteinsson & Inger Storli (2011) Court Sites of Arctic Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and Representations of Political Consolidation Processes in the Northern Germanic World during the First Millennium AD?, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 44:1, 89-117, DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2011.572685 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2011.572685 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions Downloaded by [University of Oslo] at 03:35 02 September 2013 DISCUSSIONSARC Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2011 Comments on Inger Storli: ‘Court Sites of Arctic Norway: Remains of Thing Sites and Representations of Political Consolidation Processes in the Northern Germanic World during the First Millennium AD?’ (Norwegian Archaeological Review 43(2)) ARE THE COURT SITES MULTI- defined so for northern Norway, is not partic- PURPOSE MEETING PLACES? ularly ‘monumental’, compared, e.g., to cent- ral Sweden and southern Norway. CommentsStorli et al. on ‘Court Sites of Arctic Norway’ STEFAN BRINK Two observations which Storli makes in her analysis, and which probably are important, The so-called court sites of western Norway are that it is doubtful that court sites in north- are truly enigmatic. Many ingenious expla- ern Norway were in any way associated with nations have been proposed by many reputed farms at all (Storli 2010:134), an observation scholars over decades. In this article Inger which is backed up by Asle Bruen Olsen’s Storli returns to one of the more cherished (2005) analyses of court sites in western ones, namely to see them in a legal context, Norway. The other observation is that these and she suggests that they are to be under- court sites contain dwellings for humans, stood as – ancient – thing sites. never for animals, and that there are no traces Earlier interpretations are discussed, prob- of remnants from a farming economy, no sta- lematized and dismissed by Storli. The idea of bles, cowsheds, etc. That they must have been them belonging to and controlled by nearby only sporadically inhabited, hence not being chieftains’ farms is obviously not well permanent habitations, has been rather obvi- Downloaded by [University of Oslo] at 03:35 02 September 2013 founded, and Storli can show that it is difficult ous in research for a long time. All this taken to connect them to each other geographically. together indicates periodically used meeting When discussing the defining of chieftain places often strategically situated along the farms by using monumental grave mounds, coast. But meetings for what purpose? one important reference is missing, which A vital problem with all research regarding deals with this problem in an interesting way, the court sites is chronology. The archaeological namely Åke Hyenstrand’s thesis from 1979. A and radiocarbon dating, known so far, indi- problem with this proposal of connecting the cates that they probably are to be dated to the court sites to chieftains’ farms is also that the period c. AD 200–500, hence with a majority to sizes of the ‘monumental grave mounds’, be found in the first half of the first millennium, Stefan Brink, Centre for Scandinavian Studies, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2011.572685 © 2011 Taylor & Francis 90 Storli et al. the Early Iron Age. Very few have a dating and a legal society may be reconstructed to later than the Early Viking Age (cf. Storli some degree for the Viking Age. But what 2010:131, 132, 139). Which leads us to the ques- about the Early Iron Age? tion, what do we know of a thing organization, In an attempt to get a context for a legal or any legal society whatsoever, from Early society, where these court sites could fit, Storli Iron Age Scandinavia. Nothing, as far as I can makes two comparative analyses, namely with see. It is interesting to speculate retrogressively, Tacitus’ description in his Germania (AD 97) starting in the Early Middle Ages, on how a and with the ‘free-state’ Icelandic goðorð-insti- legal society might have functioned during the tution (the Norwegianized terms goder and Late Viking Age, trying to connect to the legal godord should not be used in a journal written society we find in our earliest provincial laws, in English directed to an international audi- what is told in the Old Icelandic literature and ence). But what can a description of some Ger- archaeological excavations (see Brink 2003a, manic tribe(s) close to Limes in central 2003b, 2004a). However, a retrogressive ana- Europe, filtered through the mind of a Roman lysis building on our earliest laws, trying to say author who has a programme and purpose in something of legal society and law in the Late his writings, have to say of an Early Iron Age Viking Age or from the enactments in provin- society in northern Norway? And is the Icelan- cial laws, is a hazardous endeavour, and has dic unique goðorð-institution – or what we been considered an impossible approach for know of it – a possible structure to compare decades since the 1960s. However, used care- with? Also, between the two comparative soci- fully, asking questions possible to answer and etal contexts there is around a millennium – with a source-critical cautiousness, it is, in my one thousand years – and this fact ought to opinion, possible to do. The usage of Icelandic make one hesitate. Is this comparison hence parallels, in the way law and the legal society impossible? No, it must be permissible to bring are presented in the sagas, is also a problematic out these sources in this connection, since in exercise, partly because of source-critical con- principle they are the only ones we can consult. siderations, partly because the new Icelandic But, at the same time, one must admit the society certainly differed from the societies in problems which arise and be extremely cau- Norway and Sweden during the Viking Age, tious. Furthermore, there is another early which makes a comparison difficult. But, source which could be consulted, namely Rim- again, it is my opinion that such comparisons bert’s Vita Ansgarii and its description of a are possible, used carefully, and bearing in thing at Birka. To formulate a conclusion that mind the different societies in early Scandina- the North Norwegian court sites may be inter- via and Iceland. Archaeological excavations preted as thing sites, which where ‘regional are important, but, again, most difficult. The representations of the development from tribal Downloaded by [University of Oslo] at 03:35 02 September 2013 reason is how to find out what to look for. confederacies to an early kingdom’ (Storli What might be the physical remnants of a 2010:141), is for