Øye (I.)_Settlement Patterns and Field Systems in Medieval Norway (Lanscape History, 30:2, 2009,...

8/20/2019 Øye (I.)_Settlement Patterns and Field Systems in Medieval Norway (Lanscape History, 30:2, 2009, 37-54)

1/18

Settlement patterns and field systemsin medieval Norway

Ingvild Øye

ABSTRACT

The paper gives a survey of settlement patterns and field systems in Norway c. 800–1500 A.D.based on archaeological evidence and contemporary written sources. As topography and climate varies considerably in a country that stretches across 13 degrees of latitude, the agricultural conditions vary accordingly,resulting in regional diversity in both settlement patterns and field systems. Separate, dispersed farms have for long been regarded as the predominant form of settlement for most of the country, but also clustered settlements seem to have been common along the western and north-western coast, at least from the Middle Ages up to the nineteenth century. The diversity of settlement and tenurial patterns as well as physical variations in the agricultural potential resulted in a variety of farm types and field systems. Scattered fields under more or less

permanent cultivation without fallow periods were usual in larger parts of medieval Norway,especially to the west, while rotation of arable land was used in areas where the proportion between land and husbandry was less balanced and more extensive cultivable soils. Altogether,the Norwegian settlement patterns and field systems reflect both regional heterogeneity and variations within regions, but they also reveal similarities with the neighbouring countries.

KEYWORDS:

Norway, farming systems, settlement patterns,

INTRODUCTION

How did farmers structure their land and runtheir farms over the centuries, from the Viking

period to the end of the medieval period,in a landscape as physically diverse as theNorwegian?

In the half millennium from A.D. 800 theNorwegian farming communities workedprofound changes in the rural landscape. Theclearing of new farms and the subdivision of oldfarms transformed the layout of the farmlandand the organisation of farms. New fields, farms

and settlements were established at the cost of forests and other wasteland. At the same time, ahigh degree of continuity in main structures hasbeen recognised through the archaeologicalrecord. Even farms that are traditionally considered marginal and medieval or post-medieval, appear to have been used at an early stage — in the early Iron Age and probably even earlier (Øye 2005b). Shifts in land use andfarming are, however, clearly documented. Inthis paper a brief review will be given of settlement patterns and field systems in the

changing agrarian landscape of Norway acrossthe Middle Ages as revealed through writtensources, archaeological finds, the remains of farming structures and practices above andbelow ground, palaeobotanical material and, notleast, the landscape itself.

Norway’s situation on the northern fringes of Europe and its tough physical environment may appear as a distant and harsh region from a wider European point of view. Sedentary settlement was fragmented and limited in extentby vast tracts of mountainous terrain, forests,

moors, swampland, lakes and tarns. Until thepresent day hardly more than 3 per cent of thetotal land mass had been under cultivation(Helle 1995, pp. 3-10). Compared with theneighbouring countries and more southerly parts of Europe, Norway’s broken topography and lack of arable land may easily create theimpression that its farming systems and rural


2/18

38 LANDSCAPE HISTORY

societies have been atypical. AlthoughNorwegian farming may seem comparatively marginal in a European perspective a morenuanced and complex picture may emerge froma closer inspection — with considerableregional differences within the country and also

similarities with other North European countries. As the country stretches across 13 degrees of latitude, climatic conditions vary considerably between north and south and also betweencoast and inland, lowland and highland.Generally the climate was somewhat warmerand drier in the Viking period and Middle Agesthan it is today, with an optimum c . 950–1200(Lamb 1995). As it still does, the wind-drivenGulf Stream brought both warm air and warm water to the western and north-western coast,reducing the temperature difference between

southern and northern coastal districts andmaking grain growing possible as far north asaround 70° N (Bratrein 1996, p. 10). Generally,the more sheltered inner areas of the fjorddistricts of western and northern Norway had adrier climate than the coastal areas, with warmersummers and colder winters, and this was alsothe case in the inland areas of eastern Norway (Østlandet ), sheltered as they were from thehumid westerly winds by the high mountainrange that separates them from western Norway (Vestlandet ).

Topographically, the agricultural landscape varied greatly, from the relatively wide areas of comparatively flat land with fertile marine andmoraine deposits in south-eastern and centralØstlandet and in middle Norway (Trøndelag ) tothe more uneven and limited pockets of glacialand post-glacial deposits to be found along therest of the coast, at the fjords and in the valleysstretching from sea to mountains. At the south- western fringe of Vestlandet the unique moraineplain of Jæren , comprising 700 squarekilometres, stands out from the more broken

coastal landscape to the north and south-east.Beyond the arable land there were everywherereserves of pasture on more barren soils or inareas climatically unsuitable for grain growing;they were particularly abundant in the northernand western parts of the country and generally in high-lying terrain (Helle 1995, pp. 5-14) (Fig.1).

THE STATE OF RESEARCH

Traditionally, the separate farm has beenregarded as the predominant form of settlementin Norway through all the centuries since theearly Iron Age, if not earlier. In the betteragricultural districts of the south and east of Scandinavia, village settlement with acomparatively well-developed system of cultivation in common was usual in the Middle Ages. Topographic conditions have beenconsidered as decisive for this pattern: villagesgrew up where it was possible to cultivatelarger, contiguous areas of land, and isolatedfarms developed where cultivated land wasmore dispersed, especially in the forest andmountain areas. Today, this outlook has beenchallenged (Widgren 1997a; Øye 2000). Thereare reasons to look more closely into — andperhaps also revise — the rather stereotypicideas about sharp distinctions between separatefarms, hamlets and villages in the differentregions of medieval Scandinavia, which alsohave consequences when regarding ways of farming and land use.

Largely, research concerning rural settlementand agrarian development in medieval Norway has been the field of historians, while medievalarchaeology for the last four decades has mainly concentrated on urban conditions. This trend

has been, however, slightly reversed in recent years, with a renewed archaeological interest inrural aspects.1

In a project initiated by the Institute forComparative Research in Human Culture in Osloin the 1940s, the relationship between separatefarms and different types of nucleatedsettlement was placed on the agenda for the firsttime and several case studies were implementedin order to throw light on the structure of thenucleated farm (Holmsen et al. 1956). Attemptsto reconstruct nucleated farmsteads as they

appeared before the extensive division of farmsfrom the middle of the nineteenth century onwards were also made (Berg 1968), but only in south-west Norway in a longer perspectiveincluding medieval and prehistoric farms(Rønneseth 2001 [1974]). However, these studieshave not had any great impact on more recentresearch on medieval farms — and the questionof agglomeration has not been focused upon.


3/18

A retrogressive method has played a strongrole in Norwegian agrarian studies from the1930s to the present. The method is based onthe study of accounts, tax lists, record evidencefrom the post-medieval periods and latercadastral maps, etc, in search for archaic featuresin sources used in combination with the morefragmentary medieval sources. The method hasbeen considered as especially suitable inNorway. The idea of a high degree of structuralcontinuity and stability in the Norwegian

agrarian society has nearly become a dogma(Holmsen 1981 [1940]). Toponymic material,especially farm names, has also played animportant role in the study of the chronology of agrarian settlements in both the Iron Age andthe Middle Ages. The overall theoretical andmethodological framework for Norwegianagrarian historical research has been a highdegree of continuity, with a system of self-

sufficiency within peasant society. It is alsonotable that the personal freedom held by medieval Norwegian peasants has beenemphasised — a system without sharpdistinctions between tenants and freeholders inlegal and economic matters. It is interesting toobserve how egalitarian conditions in thepeasant community have aroused more interestthan stratification and social inequality.

Archaeological research into medieval ruralsettlement has concentrated upon abandoned,

and rather marginal, dispersed and small-scalesingle farms in the south-western and westernpart of Norway. The aspect of agglomeratedsettlement has not been central in medievalarchaeological research so far. Until the 1970sarchaeological investigations were mainly engaged in examining the construction and thelayout of the farmhouses; the farmland itself attracted less attention. New interest in the

39SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND FIELD SYSTEMS IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY

Fig. 1. Vegetation regions in Norway (Drawing P. Bækken)


4/18

ecological processes, however, has now calledfor a closer co-operation between archaeologistsand natural scientists, resulting in investigationsof the farmland — fences, lynchets, cultivatedfields, outfields — and of the utilisation and thecarrying capacity of natural resources (Randers

1981; Kaland 1987; Pedersen 1990; Holm 1995).Recently, also, more sustainable farms that arestill in use have been studied archaeologically,especially in the western part of the country:fossilised and relict agrarian structures, such aslynchets, fences, clearance cairns and otheragrarian remains, both in the infield and outfieldas well as in high-lying areas, have beeninvestigated (Fig. 2). This approach has beenpossible in areas of low-intensity farming wheremodern farming techniques have been usedonly to a limited extent and where artificial

features therefore tend to survive (Austad & Øye2001; Øye 2002b).

In northern Norway so-called farm mounds(gårdshauger ) — accumulated masses anddeposits of household refuse, ruins of buildingsetc, often 0.5–5 metres high and covering areasof 50–200 x 50–100 metres (Bertelsen 1979) — have been investigated since the 1960s,

indicating that the accumulation of the moundsstarted in the later part of the first millennium A.D. or early in the second. The settlementpattern is typically dispersed and shows singleor double holdings with a common yard (tún )(Bertelsen & Lamb 19935). The nucleated ring-shaped settlements from the late Iron Age alongthe coast of northern Norway seem to come toan end in the early Middle Ages (Johansen1982). Agglomerated medieval settlements alsooccur in this part of the country and a few havebeen excavated from the middle of the 1950s

onwards (Simonsen 1980). Still, specifically archaeological evidence of agrarian remains is


Fig. 2. Archeologically investigated farms in western Norway, 1995–2008.


5/18

sparse. Interdisciplinary studies over a widerfield can to some degree compensate fordeficiencies in one aspect, combiningdocumentary, scientific and archaeologicalevidence.

The development of farms has to a large

extent been interpreted both by historians andarchaeologists as one of an organic evolution,from larger to smaller units, responding todemographic and economic variables. Farms were divided into new farms and subdividedinto several holdings when the populationincreased, a process reversed when it decreased.In Norway the splitting up and division of farmshas also been seen as an early medieval process,starting in the Viking period. A general theory has been that the old kin society of extendedfamilies with collective property rights was

broken up, leading to a more individual andprivate orientation in settlement andorganisation with separate farms (e.g. Holmsen1966 [1935], p. 27; Sandnes 1971). Populationgrowth was the initiator for the splitting up intoeven smaller units, especially where arable land was limited, as in western Norway. Populationgrowth and colonisation in eastern Norway wasa process that resulted in separate farms, sincearable land was far more readily available, as it was in mid-Norway.

A farm was divided when the distance to the

natural resources became too long (Salvesen1996). A more or less implicit premise in this sitecatchment model has been that the family andthe kin group held ownership or could disposeof land more or less freely, with access to thecommons as a reservoir for cultivation. Theagents behind this, and the framework of society, have to a lesser degree been discussedin this context. The breaking up and clearanceof new land was not initiated by magnates andentrepreneurs, as on the Continent (Holmsen1966, p. 82). The Norwegian development, and

the nature of the Norwegian records, hastraditionally been considered as so unique thatScandinavian and European experiences havebeen seen as of minor relevance for Norwegianagrarian research. Several of thesepreconditions, approaches and outlooks have,however, lately been questioned (Lunden 1995;T. Iversen 1995 and 1996), and the oldconsensus among the agrarian researchers has

been split, opening up the ground for newquestions, perspectives and comparisons withother regions. Some recent studies, botharchaeological and historical, have nowconsidered such aspects and have stimulated thedebate about whether Norwegian rural society

in the early Middle Ages was primarily anegalitarian society, based on relatively homogenous farms and holdings, or had a morehierarchical structure, rooted in landownershipover larger territories, more like the multipleestates further south and to the west but on asmaller scale (Skre 1998; F. Iversen 1999 and2004; T. Iversen & Myking 2005).

AGRARIAN SETTLEMENTS — AGGLOMERATED OR DISPERSED?

The main unit of production and settlement inNorwegian agrarian studies has been the so-called named farm (Norw. navnegård ), that isthe farm denoted by its own name — regardlessof its structure, size and degree of subdivisioninto holdings. According to the Norwegianresearch tradition, the concept of a farm with itsown name could cover a whole range of settlements — from the small, dispersedseparate farm or holding to large subdividedmultiple farms, comprising all land used for

agricultural purposes: the farmhouses, infieldand outfield, and might include even forest andmountain areas (cf . Sandnes 1979, p. 166;Bjørkvik, KLNM V: pp. 625-31). Farm names arealso considered to reflect settlement hierarchiesand temporal changes, many of them appearingover larger regions in Scandinavia and thecolonised areas to the west.

The definition of a farm may, however, vary in different areas and in different disciplines.The terminological dividing lines betweenholdings, farms, hamlets — and even villages —

are rather vague and fluid in Scandinavia(Widgren 1997b; Øye 2000; 2002a, pp. 290-91).

The different elements or structures withinthe farm territory had, however, their ownindividual terms. The common noun for theinhabited and cultivated area was ON bær, býr,derived from búa, ‘to dwell, reside’, or thesynonyms ból and bólstaðr. The nucleus of thehabitation area was called bœli or tún



6/18

(etymogically parallel to OE tún ) referring to theinhabited area and the space between thefarmhouses — the farmyard. A central farm wascalled hofudból. The farm territory — theassessed farmland — was denoted jörð or thesynonym land (which included both the infield

and outfield in Norway). The ON term garðr (etymologically identical with English ‘yard’ andthe Scottish garth ) originally denoted thefenced-in settled and arable land, ON ákr . Itssecondary, extended meaning of a settled,economic and agrarian unit does not seem tohave originated before the thirteenth century,and appears to be more frequent in the easternpart of Norway and in Trøndelag (Holmsen et al . 1956, p. 29). All these terms, and theirderivations, like bóli, bú, býlingar, bister,toun/tun , are also used in the Norse settlement

areas to the west — Shetland, Orkney, theFareoes and Iceland — and with an identicalmeaning, implying a parallel way of structuringthe farm area when the areas were colonised(Øye 2005a, p. 361; 2006, p. 36).

Neither Old Norse nor modern Norwegianmakes use of terms corresponding to ‘village’and ‘hamlet’ when describing native ruralconditions. In the neighbouring Scandinaviancountries the concept of village has been put touse but there is no linguistic distinction between village and hamlet.2 In a Scandinavian

perspective there is undoubtedly some truth inthe difference that has sometimes beenemphasised between the predominance of separate, dispersed farms and holdings in the west Nordic region consisting of Norway,Iceland and peripheral Swedish districts and, onthe other hand, the east Nordic village or hamletdistricts of most of Denmark, central Swedenand parts of Finland. The dividing line betweenthe two main types of settlement is, however,far from clear-cut, neither geographically norfactually. Terminologically, it has been shown

that the term of by/bö covers both the Swedishhamlet and the medieval Norwegian farm, andthe latter might comprise as many agglomeratedholdings as Swedish or Danish hamlets andeven villages. Even in Britain it can be difficultto draw the line between these categories(Fowler 2002, pp. 118-20). In recentarchaeological, and partly also in historical,research in Scandinavia the difference between

hamlets and villages has moreover been blurredby the minimum definition of a village as acluster of only three farms or holdings in the late Viking Age and early Middle Ages (Porsmose1981, p. 23; Liebgott 1989, p. 26). Theagglomerated Norwegian farms were, however,

generally smaller and more irregular and hadmore limited arable land than, for example,Danish medieval villages.

HOLDINGS —– SPATIAL SEPARATION OR SHAREHOLDING?

Originally, Norse people also lacked a specialterm for a holding (Norw. bruk ) as a unit of production occupied by a household, normally a family (Sandnes 1979, p. 166). This may have

been due to looser and less defined property rights and a higher degree of joint farmingpractices than later. The different householdscould be localised in the same tún — anucleated multiple farm — or they could be splitup in several decentralised tún or units withinthe farm’s boundaries. The holdings of amultiple farm with their houses might each beseparate, or they might be concentrated in acommon tún , resembling a hamlet. Theseparately placed holdings and tún of a farmmight have their own sub-names with prefixes

indicating their situation in relation to each other — upper, middle and lower, inner and outer,north, east, south, west, and the like — andcould later develop into separate named farms.Holdings in multiple tún could be referred to by their dwelling house (ON stofa or hús ) butnormally the farm name gives no clear referenceto type of settlement.

Subdivided, agglomerated farms with theirhouses built closely together in a common tún were mostly to be found in the coastal areas of western and northern Norway and in the mid

and eastern Norwegian border areas towardsSweden, including the districts of Jämtland andBohuslän, now belonging to Sweden (Bjørkvik1956, p. 48; Salvesen 1996, p. 47). In Bohuslänit has been estimated that about 40 per cent of the farms were clustered in hamlets (byar )(Widgren 1997a, pp. 10, 116), some of them with a structure resembling the west Norwegianagglomerated farm.



7/18

Sometimes the sources show glimpses of such nucleated farms. In 1314, Kvåle, one of thelargest farms in the west Norwegian community of Sogndal, was divided between three heirs.Here twenty to thirty houses were clusteredtogether in the same tún : several dwelling

houses, outhouses, a church and several housesbelonging to the priest (Øye 1986, p. 411). Atthis time Kvåle was the residence of local noblesand probably farmed by hired labour. In the lateMiddle Ages, and in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries, as many as six to seventenants with their households worked the farm.The structure of the farm was not unique; itresembled agglomerated settlements knownfrom later sources. Like Kvåle, some of these were core areas and cultural foci with seats of magnates and churches. Their centrality was

probably originally due to factors such as thehigh quality land and the convergence of linesof communication. Once established, they hadgreat durability. Although many of them couldhave been of a considerable size and with aclustered settlement, as at Kvåle, splitting upinto several holdings seems to have been mainly a phenomenon of the high and post Middle Ages. But not all clustered farms were large andhad central functions (Pl. I).

A settlement pattern of separate, dispersedfarms has been regarded as typical of most of

Norway, and of Østlandet and Trøndelag inparticular. Neither of these regions was,however, homogenous in farm structure. Someof the biggest farms were subdivided into threeor four holdings in the high Middle Ages andmight constitute quite large units. To whatdegree such holdings were clustered together orseparated from each other is unclear, but someexamples of common tún are known from theseparts of the country as well. Nevertheless, thegreat majority of farms in Østlandet andTrøndelag were comparatively small and

separate, being worked by only one household,and this was also a widespread settlementpattern in other parts of the country (Sandnes &Salvesen 1978; Lunden 2000).

The pattern of separate, dispersed farms may have originated in various ways. Land clearanceby individual peasant colonists would naturally result in such a pattern. It would be furthered by

the restricted and fragmented patches of cultivable land left in many areas in the highMiddle Ages. The pioneering spirit of individualcolonists was stimulated by a deliberate royalpolicy of rewards in the form of tax relief and of partial ownership of, and reduced land rent

from, farms cleared on commons. A dispersedsettlement pattern could also be the result of grants of land on the edge of existingsettlements to free tenants, a process that can bedocumented in many parts of the country.Partible inheritance and weak lordship may alsohave contributed to the pattern of separatefarms and holdings. In general, this was apattern that can be said to have been connected with the clearance of new land and theestablishment of new settlements. Subdivisionleading to agglomeration was mainly a

phenomenon within older settlements (Øye2004, p. 98).The origin of clustered settlements in

Norway is still unclear, and should be seen as aprocess taking place over a longer period,determined by factors such as availableresources and soil conditions, ownership andtenure, and social practices. Nor is it clear howNorwegian medieval farms developed in size,apart from the fact that the average extent of holdings must have been reduced throughoutthe period under consideration. The presence of

landlords who supervised the process of landallocation may explain why holdings wereestablished around a common centre in theearly part of the period. In northern Norway clustered settlements in the form of small fishing villages (ON ver, Norw. vær ) and so-called farmmounds were connected with the developmentof commercial fisheries. Their agrarian aspect was, however, mainly limited to animalhusbandry.

To sum up, the rural settlement pattern of Viking Age and medieval Norway was not

homogenous, which should serve as a warningagainst monocausal explanation and drawattention to a number of possible causal factorsin a wide economic and social context:fragmentation of property rights and partibleinheritance, gifts, sales, mortgages, land grants,and the like. Manorial tenure and socialstratification may have been more important



8/18


Pl. 1. The farm Havrå on the island Osterøy, north of Bergen, is one of the archaeologically investigated farms in westernNorway. The clustered settlement is centrally located within the infield. Traces of small arable fields are still visible in theinfield close to the settlement. Vegetation indicates the old cattle lane that ends in an infield stonefence separating the infieldand outfield. The hilly farm territory topographically from the fjord to the highest point c. 550 metres O.D. is demarcated by steep hillsides to the east and west. The archaeological investigations showed that the farm has been used for nearly twomillennia (Photo: H. Sunde).


9/18


than has been asserted in previous research,especially in the earliest phases of the period,less so in the late Middle Ages. More research isundoubtedly needed to clarify and explain thecourses taken by Norwegian settlementdevelopment in the period. Here, attention

should, not least, be drawn to the fact that theall-embracing term of farm is apt to conceal a wider range of settlement types thantraditionally assumed, varying between, as wellas within, the different regions of the country.

FARM STRUCTURES AND LAND USE

The country contained a wide range of farmingtypes, from farms that were completely independent of their neighbours at one extreme,

to the agglomerated farms set in fairly extensiveopen fields, in which farming land to a greaterextent was subject to communal organisation, atthe other. There were the pastoral farms in theuplands in the inner valleys of Østlandet andnorthern and western Norway, where cultivableland was limited and a high proportion of theland surface remained waste, to the mixed farmsin the lowlands in Trøndelag, Østlandet and Jæren, where more land was capable of beingcultivated, and waste generally accounted for afar smaller part of the land resource. Still, in

spite of geographical variety and regional types,there are similarities between farms as regardstheir structure, nomenclature, purpose andchronology.

An infield-outfield structure was establishedin western Norway in the early Iron Age, tojudge by the archaeological remains, where afence defined the arable — both arable fieldsand meadows — inside the enclosure innan garðs, and the outfield utan garðs, and is clearly described in the literary sources representativeof the twelfth and the following centuries. The

relation between infield and outfield was,however, not static throughout the period. Inessence then, both the Iron Age and medievalfarms consisted of two complementary components reflecting an integration of a cattleand arable economy: the infield within theenclosure, plots of arable land, meadows andenclosed pastures over which the farmer hadexclusive rights for at least part of the year; and

the outlying portion of the farm — the outfieldsand waste outside the fence and, further away,the unenclosed moorland- and mountain-basedcommon rights. The infield was the moreintensive sector and the more fertile nucleus of the farm and, as in other countries, constituted

a comparatively small area close to thesettlement. But, when there was pressure onland, the outfield was opened for cultivation when possible. Archaeological studies in westNorway have also revealed a somewhatfluctuating but interacting relationship betweeninfield and outfield areas but with a steadily increased labour input in the infield during theMiddle Ages (Øye 2003). The individual’sinterest in the farmland could be defined on theground and expressed in some form of quantitative measure: while the rights on the

waste were general and shared with theneighbours, especially when associated withseveral holdings (Øye 2004, pp. 111-12).

The boundary or fence between farmland, waste and pastures (ON garðr , identical with thenorth English and Scottish term garth )(Winchester 1987, p. 60), signified a spatialdifferentiation of the farm generally dictated by the limit of cultivable land. The physicaldemarcation on the ground was also a legalboundary between the tenant-land and thelandowner’s waste in the Middle Ages, and the

resources either side of it were managedseparately. In functional terms it was the lineacross which the seasonal movement of stocktook place, animals being put out to graze onthe waste in the spring and coming back in tograze the aftergrowth and stubble after hay andgrain crops had been harvested. In physicalterms the boundary had to be substantial, as itsprincipal function was to keep stock on the waste from entering and damaging the growingcrops during the summer. In Norway, fences were often built in stone or were various

wooden constructions but could also be a hedgeor dyke preventing the free passage of animalsor people (Fig. 3). There were both temporary and permanent enclosures. Land was enclosedto keep cattle or sheep in, while the fencing-round of a common pasture area could be thefirst step towards the cultivation of this piece of land (Øye 2004, p. 113).


10/18


FIELDS AND FIELD SYSTEMS

The diversity of settlement and tenurial patternsresulted in a variety of farm types and a wide

spectrum of field systems, but regionaldifferences were ultimately related to thephysical variations in the agricultural potentialof the land and ownership structure. Here, fieldsystems are used to denote the layout of theagricultural holdings and the organisation of farming and cropping within it, thus defining anarea of land and control of its use (cf Fowler2002, p. 130). The splitting up of farms couldhave a far-reaching impact on field layout.

Landholders could divide their shares in thefarm of intermixed subdivided fields or they could divide into demarcated, self-containedunits. As already mentioned, several landholders

on a farm did not necessarily imply physicaldivision or split farmland, and property break-up of a farm did not automatically lead tophysical splitting on the ground. Less common was the third option: the farming of the farm asa single unit with only the produce, not theland, being divided. A parallel development isalso observed in England in the splitting of townships (Dodgshon 1980, p. 132).

Fig. 3. The medieval types of fences have been used until the present. The materials and building techniques variedaccording to function. Fences of brushwood (above left) were simpler constructions than the wooden fences of diagonaldesign (above right). Fences of piles (below) existed in various variations. Stone fences were the most solid ones.


11/18


On holdings based on shareholding, sharescould be repartitioned periodically betweenkinsmen so that holdings were unlikely to befixed or meaningful for any length of time.Shares could be divided into subdivided fieldsor kept as consolidated holdings. Fields could

be reallocated annually, or at least when a newlandholder took over, redivisions andreplanning of the fields being the result. Theoutfield and waste was measured and reckonedin more general terms according to rights.Consequently, holdings can also be regarded asbundles of specific strips and parcels and sharesin the total resources of the farm/township. Thelandholders thus held dispersed smaller patchesof land with a range of arable and meadowacross the infield land and stable physicalboundaries corresponding with an ownership

pattern, which also varied in relation to one andthe same area of land. Equally, evidence forshareholding occurs at the property level, whereholdings are described as a proportion of the whole, with no more exact specification given(Øye 2004, p. 99). Such processes are, however,difficult to trace and date archaeologically.

The subdivision of a farm territory was oftencarried out in several stages. The Gulathing law,the provincial law of western Norway from thetwelfth century, and the national Landlaw of 1274, refer to two principles of field division: (i)

a division into two compact parts, and (ii) adivision into strips of equal length and breadth(Bjørkvik 1956). The latter principle has led to acomplicated field system that prevails in thehamlet-like farms in the west and north. Theform and size of the fields could vary from longnarrow strips to open fields or plots withoutsystematic arrangements. This system was partly based on common ownership and partly on anintricate division of territory, which gave eachfarmer a large number of scattered andintermingled strips and plots. The size of the

infield decided how far it could be divided. Theform and size of the fields could vary from longnarrow strips to open fields that were notsystematically arranged. But they could also beallocated so that one group of holdings wouldhave its strips and plots in one unit (Bjørkvik1956). The system of subdivided fields wasshaped by the self-interest of families anxious tomaintain the same blend of extent and value,

the same advantages, which they had already derived from their fragmented holdings. Suchredivision of fields according to ‘just and equal’principles both in quality and extent is agenerally well-known system in north westernEurope (Dodgshon 1980, p. 36). Such fields

could be irregular, lacking the division into‘fields’ for cropping purposes, and be pieces of land unevenly scattered around, but also mightcomprise a single area of open arable land.Consequently, there existed a diversity of fieldtypes in different areas of the country.

In northern Norway both fields andmeadows could be owned and used in commonby the holders of a multiple farm. It could befarmed as a single unit, with the produce andnot the land being physically divided. Ploughingand sowing could be done jointly, and also the

harvest was reaped jointly and crops sharedaccording to a system of lots (Øye 2004, p. 114).Landholders themselves had to decide in whatorder they were to receive their strips, and this was done by lottery. The use of lottery to bringlandholder and land together was virtually essential. The Gulathing law stated that thetenants could claim redistribution of fields whenthey leased or released the farm; in principle itcould therefore happen every year, a system thatis also known in other North European countriesat that time, such as Ireland and Scotland

(Dodgshon 1980, p. 26). Stones, earth, sticks andbatons were used when using lottery allocationof land, indicating a flexible field system (Pls IIand III). The farm then consisted of an innercore of subdivided fields and an outer periphery of enclosures of a temporary or semi-permanentcharacter.

Technological novelties, implements, newcrops, new breeds, and more intensive methodsof tillage with a new and improved tillagetechnology, ploughing, harrowing andharvesting, probably combined with horse

power, as well as physical and tenuralreorganisation, appeared as early as the Vikingperiod and spread from the eleventh to thethirteenth century, especially in the south-eastern and most fertile areas of the country.Traces of ploughing and field systems have beendiscovered, including medieval high-ridgedfields caused by the plough in the Oslofjordregion. These innovations and involutions, with


12/18

the merging of new and old techniques and newcrops, were interdependent and formedcoherent systems that should be viewed in thecontext of the whole work operation or as a partof the whole complex of technology (cf . Myrdal1997). The techniques were often interrelatedand connected with general trends in economy and society.

Certainly elements of Norway’s geographicalposition and institutional development might,however, have hindered technologicaldevelopment and promoted regionalheterogeneity and diversity in technicaldevelopment, appropriate to each region’ssociety and environment. In areas where arableland was scattered and not very cohesive innature, fields were still tilled with hoes and

spades, which were generally a preferableoption for the smaller fields. Such tools wereabsolutely necessary for the farmer who couldnot afford ploughs or draught animals.

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN FIELD SYSTEMS

A traditional difference between farms, hamletsand villages has been the degree of social andeconomic co-operation and obligations of theinhabitants. The characteristics of a hamlet and village are not only those of the settlementcluster but also of the land use of commonarable land — the degree of social andeconomic co-operation and obligations of theinhabitants. The development of the village hasoften been seen in an evolutionary perspective,

connected with two-course and three-courserotation. The agrarian economic andtechnological level has been regarded asessential for settlement clustering and thedivision and organisation of the fields (e.g.Porsmose 1988).

Two-course and three-course rotation wasnot common in Norway and has not beenevidenced archaeologically. Scattered fieldsunder more or less permanent cultivation without fallow periods were usual in larger partsof medieval Norway, especially to the west,

maintained by intensive manuring. Alternationbetween cultivation and fallowing (andmanuring) was used in areas where theproportion between arable land and husbandry was less balanced, as in mid and easternNorway. Different physical farm structures canalso reflect dissimilarities in economic structureand the relation between arable farming andpastoral husbandry.

Generally, the agriculture was characterisedby mixed farming systems in which the twosectors were complementary, and where a

biological balance between arable farming andstockbreeding existed in a symbiosis. As hasbeen shown, arable farming was most importanton the more extensive cultivable soils of Østlandet, Trøndelag and Jæren, or other areas with favourable soil conditions for graingrowing. As a consequence, there are markedregional differences between the field systems with regard to cultivation and fallowing in the


Pl. II. Boundary stone between two patches of arable fieldsuncovered during the archaeological investigations of IndreMatre, an inner fjord farm in western Norway (to the left).


13/18


Pl. III. To the right: An old boundary between two former arable fields at Indre Matre, with boundary stones at both ends(Photos: J. Zehetner).


14/18


west and north of the country and those of themid and south-eastern part of the country,Trøndelag and Østlandet were regions withreasonably large tracts of land suitable for arablecultivation, and regions where the supply of animal manure was limited in relation to the

arable land. In other areas, where the scale of cultivation was more limited, there could alsobe an alternation between cultivation andfallowing, resulting in a system of farminginvolving heavily committed manual input, and where the land was manured and tilledcontinuously the tendency was towardssuccessive cultivation without fallow periods. Inthe western part of the country, archaeology hasdisclosed the existence of ancient terrains whosesoils were completely transformed and greatly improved over the centuries, starting in the early

Iron Age and intensified in the Viking periodand Middle Ages, by the deposition of turfs asgreen manure from the heathland, and layers of humus brought from nearby woods or producedby peat burning. This kind of intensivecultivation can be observed and identified asthicker layers of artificial soil where the earthhas been profoundly modified, since it has beenrepeatedly dug over and fertilised with dungand other soil improvements (Kaland 1987,p. 179; Austad & Øye 2001, p. 158). This wasalso a common practice in other areas in

Scandinavia and around the North Sea at thistime (Poulsen 1997, p. 120; Astill & Langdon1997, p. 95).

A rotational field system of farming can betraced back to the Middle Ages, mentioned inthe provincial law code of Frostathing, andrepresented another way of achieving nutrientrestoration: the tenants in the rural districts of Trøndelag were obliged to keep a minimumnumber of animals relative to the amount of seed sown in order to ensure that there wasenough manure to prevent the exhaustion of the

soil. Every year a quarter of the arable area wasto be left fallow and fenced in, and the animals were to be let on to it so that it would bemanured, implying a kind of ‘fold-coursesystem’. Also, if necessary, manure accumulatedduring the winter was to be spread on thefallow soils, so that at least one quarter of thearable area would benefit. These regulations were repeated in the Landlaw of 1274, implying

that soil fertilisation developed into a systematicpractice with four-course rotations, including afallow break, at least in the more fertile south-eastern part of the country. There is, however,no mention of manuring in the Gulathing lawcode with regard to Vestlandet. Here, it would

appear that the number of animals relative tothe amount of arable land was such that anadequate amount of manure was usually produced each year. That smaller infields in western Norway had been intensively manuredat an early stage has, as already noted, beendocumented by archaeology. Stock was alsoherded together in temporary folds or pens, where they dunged the ground with theirdroppings (Øye 2004, 115-16). With outfieldcultivation, the folding of stock during summer was carried out on that part scheduled for

cultivation the following spring. The manurecould thus be trod, dug, ploughed or harrowedinto the soil.

That Norway should continue to sow every year, or leave the land fallow only every fourth year within other different forms of fallowsystems, meant a relatively heavy use of thesmall area of cultivable land and also impliedincreased area productivity. Land could also beleft for a longer period without cultivation whena continuously cropped infield was combined with outfields that were cultivated occasionally

(Øye 2002a, pp. 303-5). The Norwegian fieldsystems were altogether flexible, but generally more irregular and on a smaller scale than thetwo- and three-course systems of southernScandinavia, where a larger part of the cultivatedarea was annually unsown either in a three-yearrhythm or in a biennial cycle. Annual sowing is,however, also known further south. Agglomeration was therefore not necessarily determined by, or dependent on, a special levelof farming systems based on rotation or on thestage of technological development — e.g. the

wheeled plough. Absence of a proper two-course or three-course rotation, with the regular fallowing of alarge compact field, thus separated rural Norway from larger areas in south Scandinavia and onthe Continent. But also regions in Sweden — even in the south — had hamlets (byar ) withouttwo- and three-course rotation (Widgren 1997b).Better conditions for pasture in forests,


15/18

mountain areas, and heaths or moors may beone of the reasons why the compact fallow field was not used. The natural conditions foragriculture, e.g . the quality of the soil, orpopulation development, have been seen asinterrelated determinants. But also social and

economic conditions may have been crucialinitiating factors.Infield cropping in Norway possessed a fair

degree of variety regionally. Some areas werecropped with oats and barley alternately or asmixed specie cultivation. In some areas barley was often mixed with oats and sometimesreplaced completely. As for crop rotation, itsprinciples seem to have undergone modificationin the early Middle Ages with a sowing in twophases — rye in the autumn, barley and oats inthe spring — a practice that was usual in

Atlantic Europe generally. In Norway, the firstclear evidence of the sowing of winter ryeappears in the Gulathing law code, mentionedin connection with the clearance of new land inthe outfields. To sow wheat or rye on somefields and barley or oats on others helped toavoid the risk of a bad harvest in the uncertainclimate. The mix of crops was adapted to localneeds. Grain was grown as high as 800 metresO.D. in upland valleys in Østlandet, higher thanthe present grain boundary, demonstrating theimportance of arable cultivation even in areas

with limited and marginal conditions for graingrowing (Øye 2004, p. 116). Although clustered settlements in Norway

were not dependent on common cultivation andsubject to fixed rules for the treatment of the soilto the same degree as hamlets and villages insouthern Scandinavia (where, also, the degreeof co-aration and joint ploughing etc may havebeen exaggerated), collective forms of cultivation can be traced. They include rulesabout temporary and permanent enclosure; timefor sending the cattle to pastures etc and

according to Landlaw from 1274 thesearrangements should be settled between theneighbours at a special meeting (Øye 2000,pp. 17-18). We even find traces that resembleorganisation systems of hamlets and villages inother parts of Scandinavia, with appointed farmbailiffs and farm courts (Holmsen et al. 1956,p. 80). The date and extent is, however,somewhat unclear.

Technological structures, changes in theagrarian relations of production, andinnovations of agricultural technology havebeen given greater emphasis as explanatory factors in Sweden and Denmark than inNorway. The two-course and three-course

rotation systems had arisen under the influenceof the population growth of the high Middle Ages as a safeguard against the exhaustion of limited natural resources, but also political andsocio-economic factors connected with theemerging state and the self-interests of magnateshave been taken into account. The relationshipbetween socio-economic factors and thetechnological nature of agrarian productionhave also been seen as preconditions for thedevelopment of the stationary and moreregulated villages in Denmark.

The conditions in Norway can hardly beexplained by technological improvements suchas rotation systems or ploughing. And the old view of a kinship society based on extendedfamily groups and a system of dominantly freeholders has been challenged (T. Iversen1995; Skre 1998). Therefore, one should lookcloser at the social and economic context of agglomeration and land division — for instance,ownership of land and inheritance systems.Unfortunately, there are no comprehensivestudies analysing these questions. Land division

by inheritance corresponds, however, strikingly with the general view that there was a rise inthe population during the high Middle Ages. Itis, however, in the regions with large estates,probably dating back to the Viking period orperhaps earlier (Berglund 1995; F. Iversen 1999)that are found the largest extent of clusteredsettlements and divided arable land. But not allclustered farms were large, and not alwaysamong the biggest in their community. Theconcurrence of settlement clustering and aphysical subdivision of farmland with regions

with older and larger estates, as in western andnorthern Norway, are probably not accidental. Although ownership contains several levels anddimensions, the vertical relations betweenlandowners and land-users were especially important when it came to privileges andrestrictions, including the reproduction of suchrights through, for example, hereditary tenancies. Both landlord and tenant could in fact



16/18

have an interest in division from time to time.Clustered settlements and division of the land within a more or less open field was moreflexible and could better respond todemographic fluctuations than a physicaldivision in different settlements/farmsteads.

CONCLUSIONS

As a whole, the country reveals different typesof landscapes with distinctive physicaldifferences and cultural identities as well asdifferences in ownership, building patterns,farming and farming structures. The

development in farming and farming systemsfrom the late Iron Age to the late Middle Ages should therefore be seen neither as aunilinear development nor as geographically homogenous. Differences in terminology,source material and research traditions in

different countries may to some degree explainthe traditional differences between Norway andits neighbouring countries and concealsimilarities. Although the natural conditions foragriculture differed from those facing Europeanagriculture further south, the similarities inagrarian development are also evident,especially for the southern part of the country.


NOTES

1. For studies on farm mounds in northern Norway in the1960s and ’70s see Munch 1966 and Bertelsen 1979. Forthe cultural landscape and farming system in eastNorway, see Pedersen 1990, Østmo 1991, Holm 1995,and Jerpåsen 1996. The project on ‘The Traditional WestNorwegian Farm’, was carried out 1995–1998: Austad &Øye 2001; Øye 2002b.

2. The word village refers to different kinds of settlementsin different languages and its meaning may also vary according to individual authors and national traditions of research. Thus, in English, French and German adistinction is made between ‘village’ and ‘hamlet’

whereas in Danish and Swedish sources ruralsettlements comprising more than three farms arereferred to as landsbyer or byar .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Astill, G., & Langdon. J. (eds), 1997. Medieval Farming and

Technology. The impact of agricultural change in northwest Europe . Technology and change in history,vol. 1, (Leiden).

Austad, I., & Øye, I. (eds), 2001. ‘Den tradisjonelle vestlandsgården som kulturbiologisk system’, inKulturminner og miljø. Forskning i grenseland mellom natur og kultur , ed. B. Skar, Norsk institutt forkulturminneforskning (Oslo), pp. 135-205.

Berg, A., 1968. Norske Gardstun. Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning , Skrifter serie B, vol.55 (Oslo).

Berglund. B., 1995. Tjøtta-riket. En arkeologisk undersøkelse av maktforhold og sentrumsdannelser på Helgelandskysten fra Kr. f. til 1700 e. Kr , UnivTrondheim Ph.D. thesis.

Bertelsen, R., 1979. ‘Farm mounds in north Norway. Areview of recent research’, Norwegian Archaeol Rev , 12(Oslo), pp. 48-56.

Bertelsen, R., & Lamb, R., 1993. ‘Settlement mounds in theNorth Atlantic’, in The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney and the North Atlantic , ed. C. Batey, J. Jesch & C. D.Morris (Edinburgh), pp. 544-54.

Bertelsen, R., & Lamb, R., 1995. ‘Settlement mounds in theNorth Atlantic’, in Sentrale temaer i nordnorsk mellomalderarkeologi , ed. R. Bertelsen, Universitetet iTromsø, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, Stensilserie B,nr. 34 (Tromsø).

Bjørkvik, H., ‘Gård’, in Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk Middelalder, vol. V (Oslo), pp. 625-31.

Bjørkvik, H., 1956. ‘Farm territories. Habitation and fieldsystems, boundaries and common ownership’, in ‘Theold Norwegian peasant ccommunity’, ed. Holmsen,Bjørkvik & Frimannslund, pp. 33-61.

Bratrein, H., 1996. ‘Det nordnorske jordbruket — noenspesielle trekk’, Jord og gjerning 1994/95. Årbok for Norsk Landbruksmuseum (Ås), pp. 7-24.

Dodgshon, R. A., 1980. The Origin of British Field Systems:an interpretation (London).

Fowler, P., 2002. Farming in the First Millenium AD . British agriculture between Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror (Cambridge).

Helle, K., 1995. ‘Down to 1536’, in Norway: a history from the Vikings to our own times, ed. R. Danielsen, S. Dyrvik,T. Grønlie, K. Helle & E. Hovland (Oslo), pp. 3-119.

Holm, I., 1995. Trekk ved Vardals agrare historie, Varia 31(Oslo).

Holmsen, A., 1966 [1935]. Gard – bygd – rike. Festskrift til Andreas Holmsens 60-års dag 5. juni 1966 (Oslo-Bergen-Trondheim).


17/18


Holmsen, A., 1981 [1940]. Nye metoder innen en særskiltgren av norsk historieforskning’, Historisk Tidsskrift , 32,pp. 27-45.

Holmsen, A., , Bjørkvik, H., & Frimannslund, R. (eds) 1956.‘The old Norwegian peasant community. Investigationsundertaken by the Institute for Comparative Research inHuman Culture’ (Oslo), Scandinavian Econ Hist Rev , 4,pp. 17-81.

Iversen, F., 1999 [1997]. Var middelalderens lendmannsgårder kjerner i eldre godssamlinger? En analyse av romlig organisering av graver og eiendomsstruktur i Hordaland og Sogn og Fjordane,

Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universiteteti Bergen nr 4 (Bergen).

Iversen, F., 2004. Eiendom, makt og statsdannelse.Kongsgårder i Hordaland i yngre jernalder og middelalder , Univ Bergen Ph.D. thesis (Bergen).

Iversen, F., 2005. ‘Royal manors and estates in WesternNorway in the late Iron Age and Middle Ages’, in Land,Lords and Peasants, ed. Iversen & Myking, pp. 133-44.

Iversen, T., 1995. ‘Framveksten av det norskeleilendingsvesenet i middelalderen – en

forklaringsskisse’, Heimen, 32, pp. 169-80.Iversen, T., 1996. ‘Jordleie, patroner og klienter førhøymiddelalderens leilendingsvesen i Norge’, Heimen ,32, pp. 147-56.

Iversen, T., & Myking. J. R. (eds), 2005. Land, Lords and Peasants: peasants’ right to control and in the Middle Ages and the early modern period – Norway,Scandinavia and the Alpine region. Report from a seminar in Trondheim, November 2004. Skriftserie fraInstitutt for historie og klassiske fag (Trondheim).

Jerpåsen, G. B., 1996. Gunnerød – en arkeologisk landskapsanalyse , Varia, 35. UniversitetetsOldsaksamling (Oslo).

Johansen, O. S., 1982. ‘Viking Age farms’, Norwegian Archael Rev , 15, pp. 45-69.

Kaland, S. H. H., 1987. ‘Viking/medieval settlement in theheathland area of Nordhordland’, Universitetets Oldsaksamlings skrifter. Nye rekke nr. 9, Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress, ed. J. Knirk (Oslo), pp. 171-90.

Lamb, H. H., 1995 [1985]. Climate, History and the Modern World (London & New York).

Liebgott, N.-K., 1989. Dansk middelaldearkæologi (Copenhagen).

Lunden, K., 1995. ‘Før leiglendingssystemet’, Heimen, 32,pp. 273-87.

Lunden, K., 2000. ‘Folketalsutviklinga frå Svartedauden ogfram til 1660-åra’, in Norges landbrukshistorie til år 2000. Sosiale endringer i bondesamfunnet .Rapportseminar fra programseminar 15–16 oktober1999, Bergen, ed. R. Almås & B. Gjerdåker. Rapport7/00. Senter for bygdeforskning (Trondheim), pp. 49-95.

Munch, G. S., 1966. ‘Gårdshauger i Nord-Norge’, Viking , 30(Oslo), pp. 25-54.

Myrdal, J., 1997. ‘The agricultural transformation of Sweden,100–1300’, in Medieval Farming and Technology , ed.

Astill & Langdon, pp. 147-71.Myrdal, J., 1999. Jordbruket under feodalismen 1000−1700.

Det svenska jordbrukets historia, Bind nr 2 (Stockholm).

Pedersen, E. A., 1990. ‘Rydningsrøysfelt og gravminner. Sporav eldre bosetningsstruktur på Østlandet’, Viking, 53,pp. 50-66.

Porsmose, E.,1981. Den regulerede landsby I – II. Studier over bebyggelsesudviklingen på Fyn fra ca 1700 til ca 1000 e.Kr. fødsel (Odense).

Porsmose, E., 1988. ‘Middelalder 1000–1536’. Det danske landbrugs historie I Oldtid og middelalder (Odense),

pp. 205-417.Poulsen, B., 1997. ‘Agricultural technology in medieval

Denmark’, in Medieval Farming and Technology, ed. Astill & Langdon, pp. 115-45.

Randers, K., 1981. Høybøen – en ødegård på Sotra. En undersøkelse av bruksperioder og erverv basert på bosetningsspor fra eldre jernalder og middelalder , UnivBergen unpubl MA thesis in Archaeology.

Rønneseth, O., 2001 [1974]. Gard og gjerde – faser i utviklingen av Jærens kulturlandskap ,. Oversettelse ogforord av F-A. Stylegar (Stavanger).

Salvesen, H., 1996. ‘Om opphavssitusjonen for norskeklyngetun’, in Bønder, jord og rettighter. Skriftserie fra Historisk institutt , nr. 16 (Trondheim).

Sandnes, J., 1971. Ødetid og gjenreisning. Trøndsk busetningshistorie ca 1200 – 1660 , Skrifter utg. av Norsk Agrarhistorisk forskningsgruppe (Trondheim).

Sandnes, J., 1979. Ødegårdsprosjektet og tallet på gårdsbruki Norge i høgmellomalderen, Historisk Tidsskrift,pp. 397-410.

Sandnes, J., & Salvesen, H., 1978. Ødegårdstid i Norge. Det nordiske ødegårdsprosjekts norske undersøkelser (Oslo).

Simonsen, P., 1980. Fiskerbonden i Nord-Troms 1300 – 1700.Belyst ved tuftegravinger ,. Publikasjon nr. 1 fraHelgøyprosjektet, Univ Tromsø (Tromsø).

Skre, D., 1998. Herredømmet. Bosetning og besittelse på Romerike 200 – 1350 e. Kr , Acta Humaniora (Oslo).

Widgren, M., 1997a. Bysamfällighet och tegskifte i Bohuslän 1300 – 1750. Skrifter utgivna av Bohusläns museum och

Bohusläns hembygsförbund, nr. 60 (Stockholm). Widgren, M., 1997b. ‘Fields and field systems in Scandinavia

during the Middle Ages’, in Medieval Farming and Technology, ed. Astill & Langdon, pp. 173–92.

Winchester, A. J. L., 1987. Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria (Edinburgh).

Zehetner, J. L., 2007. Fra sted til gård. En agrararkeologisk analyse av Indre Matre i Kvinnherad, Hordaland, UnivBergen Ph.D. thesis.

Østmo, E., 1991. Gård og boplass i østnorsk oldtid og middelalder. Aktuelle oppgaver for forskning og

forvaltning, Varia 22, Universitetets Oldsaksamling(Oslo).

Øye, I., 1986. ‘Sogndal i mellomalderen ca. 1050−1537’,Sogndal bygdebok b. I, (Bergen), pp. 239-460.

Øye, I., 2000. ‘Norway in the Middle Ages. Farms or hamlets – and villages too?’ Ruralia III, Conference Ruralia III,Maynooth 3rd–9th Sept. 1999 (Prague), pp. 12-23.

Øye, I., 2002a. ‘Landbruk under press 800−1350’, Jorda blir levevei 4000 f. Kr – 1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie bd. 1 (Oslo), pp. 214-477.

Øye, I. (ed.), 2002b. Vestlandsgården – fire arkeologiske undersøkelser: Havrå – Grinde – Lee – Ormelid ved L.

Julshamn, R. L. Bade, K. A.Valvik og J.Larsen. Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universiteteti Bergen 8 (Bergen).


18/18

Øye, I., 2003. ‘Outfields as part of the medieval farm – fourarchaeological case studies from Western Norway’, inScandinavian Archaeological Practice – in Theory , ed.

J. Bergstøl, Oslo Archaeol Ser, vol. 1 (Oslo), pp. 400-11.Øye, I., 2004. ‘Agricultural conditions and rural societies c.

800−1350’, in Norwegian Agricultural History , ed. R. Almås, (Trondheim), pp. 79-140.

Øye, I., 2005a. ‘Farming and farming systems in Norse

societies of the North Atlantic’, in Viking and Norse in the North Atlantic. Select papers from Proceedings of the Fourteenth Viking Congress, Tórshavn, 19 – 30 July 2001,Annales Societas Scientiarium Færoensis Supplementum XLIV, ed. A. Mortensen. & S. Arge (Tórshavn), pp. 359-70.

Øye, I., 2005b. ‘Land and peasants – recent medieval studiesin Norway’, in Land, Lords and Peasants , ed. Iversen &Myking, pp. 119- 32.

Øye, I., 2006. ‘Vestnorsk og vestnordisk landbruk i vikingtidog middelalder’, in De vestnordiske landes fælleshistorie II. Udvalg af foredrag på VNH-konferencerne i Ísafjördur 2003, Tórshavn 2004 og Oslo 2005 , ed. A. Mortensen,

A. R. Nielssen & J. Th. Thor. INUSSK. Arktisk

forskningsjournal 2 (Nuuk), pp. 33-55.


Øye (I.)_Settlement Patterns and Field Systems in Medieval Norway (Lanscape History, 30:2, 2009,...

Documents

Transcript of Øye (I.)_Settlement Patterns and Field Systems in Medieval Norway (Lanscape History, 30:2, 2009,...